2016
DOI: 10.1016/s1876-3804(16)30123-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical simulation of chemical potential dominated fracturing fluid flowback in hydraulically fractured shale gas reservoirs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In eq 5, q l fm stands for the water/gas flux between f and m (g/cm 3 ·s), which can be calculated by the following equationwhere α 2 stands for the shape factor between f and m (cm –2 ), proposed by Kazemi et al, 59 p l m and p c,l m stand for the water/gas pressure (10 –1 MPa) and capillary force (10 –1 MPa) in m, respectively, and p π , described by Wang and Pan, 42 is the osmotic pressure (10 –1 MPa) for water, which can be defined aswhere λ is the membrane efficiency characterizing the capacity of the clay membrane to allow water molecule pass through; x f stands for the molar fraction of the water molecule in the fracturing fluid, while x m represents the molar fraction of the water molecule in the formation brine.…”
Section: Mathematical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In eq 5, q l fm stands for the water/gas flux between f and m (g/cm 3 ·s), which can be calculated by the following equationwhere α 2 stands for the shape factor between f and m (cm –2 ), proposed by Kazemi et al, 59 p l m and p c,l m stand for the water/gas pressure (10 –1 MPa) and capillary force (10 –1 MPa) in m, respectively, and p π , described by Wang and Pan, 42 is the osmotic pressure (10 –1 MPa) for water, which can be defined aswhere λ is the membrane efficiency characterizing the capacity of the clay membrane to allow water molecule pass through; x f stands for the molar fraction of the water molecule in the fracturing fluid, while x m represents the molar fraction of the water molecule in the formation brine.…”
Section: Mathematical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2016, Fakcharoenphol et al 41 simulated fracturing fluid flowback to investigate how shut-in affects gas produced and water recovery. In 2016, Wang and Pan 42 proposed a chemical potential dominant flowback model in shale gas reservoirs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the drilling process of shale formation, the great salinity difference between the drilling fluid and formation water is bound to form a strong chemical potential difference, which drives the drilling fluid to migrate from the wellbore or fracture to the shale matrix. The chemical potential difference [52] is as follows:…”
Section: Chemical Potential Difference Between the Drillingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fracturing practice shows that the salinity of the flowback fluid of the shale reservoir is generally high [18,19]. With the extension of the backflow time, the salinity of the flowback fluid keeps increasing, reaching up to 10 × 10 4 mg L −1 , whereas the salinity of the slick water injected during fracturing is very low (approximately 1000 mg L −1 ) [18,19]. The salt ions in the flowback fluid are mainly derived from the…”
Section: Soluble Salt Mineralsmentioning
confidence: 99%