IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i17p12944-d1226830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influencing Factors of Drainage and Production and Quantitative Evaluation in Shale Gas Reservoirs

Author

Listed:
  • Hao Xu

    (College of Petroleum Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China)

  • Tuan Gu

    (Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Liaohe Oilfield Company of Petro, Panjin 124000, China)

  • Shuangliang Wu

    (Drilling & Production Technology Research Institue of Petrochina Jidong Oilfield, Tangshan 063299, China)

  • Shucan Xu

    (College of Petroleum Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China)

  • Xiang Yu

    (Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Liaohe Oilfield Company of Petro, Panjin 124000, China)

  • Xiaochao Guo

    (Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Liaohe Oilfield Company of Petro, Panjin 124000, China)

  • Tao Fan

    (Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Liaohe Oilfield Company of Petro, Panjin 124000, China)

  • Desheng Zhou

    (College of Petroleum Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China)

Abstract

As a transitional energy source, natural gas plays a crucial role in the energy transition. In the efficient development of shale gas, the drainage and production process, as an important link between hydraulic fracturing and production, determines the recovery rate of individual wells. To clarify the main controlling factors of shale gas drainage and production, provide strategies for classification, and improve the recovery rates of individual wells, a numerical simulation method was proposed to analyze the factors affecting drainage and production, and the VIKOR method was used for quantitative evaluation of the drainage and production effects. The research results showed that: (1) The study identified nine main controlling factors affecting drainage and production performance, including gas saturation, permeability, stress difference, burial depth, formation pressure, cumulative fracture volume, final fracture loss rate, average final diversion ability, and wellbore liquid loading. (2) A workflow for quantitatively evaluating the drainage and production effectiveness of shallow shale gas wells and selecting wells with potential for optimized drainage and production was proposed. The correlation between the evaluation results and EUR fitting had an R 2 value of 0.71, indicating a good level of credibility. (3) The evaluation results for the target gas field indicated that out of the 16 representative wells, 12 wells have optimization potential, with 5 wells showing significant optimization potential. Studying the rules of shale gas drainage and production and evaluating the drainage and production effects can help us to propose refined drainage and production strategies, which are essential for improving the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR).

Suggested Citation

  • Hao Xu & Tuan Gu & Shuangliang Wu & Shucan Xu & Xiang Yu & Xiaochao Guo & Tao Fan & Desheng Zhou, 2023. "Influencing Factors of Drainage and Production and Quantitative Evaluation in Shale Gas Reservoirs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-23, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:12944-:d:1226830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/12944/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/12944/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Toscano & Filiberto Bilotti & Francesco Asdrubali & Claudia Guattari & Luca Evangelisti & Carmine Basilicata, 2016. "Recent Trends in the World Gas Market: Economical, Geopolitical and Environmental Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Temitope Love Baiyegunhi & Christopher Baiyegunhi & Benedict Kinshasa Pharoe, 2022. "Global Research Trends on Shale Gas from 2010–2020 Using a Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Guanglin Pi & Xiucheng Dong & Cong Dong & Jie Guo & Zhengwei Ma, 2015. "The Status, Obstacles and Policy Recommendations of Shale Gas Development in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keqiang Guo & Baosheng Zhang & Kjell Aleklett & Mikael Höök, 2016. "Production Patterns of Eagle Ford Shale Gas: Decline Curve Analysis Using 1084 Wells," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Pan Zhang & Yongjun Du & Sijie Han & Qingan Qiu, 2022. "Global Progress in Oil and Gas Well Research Using Bibliometric Analysis Based on VOSviewer and CiteSpace," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Cong Dong & Xiucheng Dong & Joel Gehman & Lianne Lefsrud, 2017. "Using BP Neural Networks to Prioritize Risk Management Approaches for China’s Unconventional Shale Gas Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Xia Wu & Jun Xia & Baoshan Guan & Xinming Yan & Lei Zou & Ping Liu & Lifeng Yang & Si Hong & Sheng Hu, 2019. "Water Availability Assessment of Shale Gas Production in the Weiyuan Play, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, February.
    5. Wang, Jianliang & Mohr, Steve & Feng, Lianyong & Liu, Huihui & Tverberg, Gail E., 2016. "Analysis of resource potential for China’s unconventional gas and forecast for its long-term production growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 389-401.
    6. Davide Borelli & Francesco Devia & Ermanno Lo Cascio & Corrado Schenone & Alessandro Spoladore, 2016. "Combined Production and Conversion of Energy in an Urban Integrated System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Carlo Andrea Bollino & Francesco Asdrubali & Paolo Polinori & Simona Bigerna & Silvia Micheli & Claudia Guattari & Antonella Rotili, 2017. "A Note on Medium- and Long-Term Global Energy Prospects and Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-25, May.
    8. Fei Wang & Changjian Wang & Yongxian Su & Lixia Jin & Yang Wang & Xinlin Zhang, 2017. "Decomposition Analysis of Carbon Emission Factors from Energy Consumption in Guangdong Province from 1990 to 2014," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Lo Cascio, Ermanno & Von Friesen, Marc Puig & Schenone, Corrado, 2018. "Optimal retrofitting of natural gas pressure reduction stations for energy recovery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 387-399.
    10. Chen, Siyuan & Zhang, Qi & Wang, Ge & Zhu, Lijing & Li, Yan, 2018. "Investment strategy for underground gas storage facilities based on real option model considering gas market reform in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 132-142.
    11. Eveloy, Valerie, 2019. "Hybridization of solid oxide electrolysis-based power-to-methane with oxyfuel combustion and carbon dioxide utilization for energy storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 550-571.
    12. Dong, Xiucheng & Pi, Guanglin & Ma, Zhengwei & Dong, Cong, 2017. "The reform of the natural gas industry in the PR of China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 582-593.
    13. Hui Li & Renjin Sun & Wei-Jen Lee & Kangyin Dong & Rui Guo, 2016. "Assessing Risk in Chinese Shale Gas Investments Abroad: Modelling and Policy Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-17, July.
    14. Hongxun Liu & Jianglong Li, 2018. "The US Shale Gas Revolution and Its Externality on Crude Oil Prices: A Counterfactual Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Joel Gehman & Dara Y. Thompson & Daniel S. Alessi & Diana M. Allen & Greg G. Goss, 2016. "Comparative Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Practices in Unconventional Shale Development: Newspaper Coverage of Stakeholder Concerns and Social License to Operate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-23, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:12944-:d:1226830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.