2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surfactant selection criteria with flowback efficiency and oil recovery considered

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Scholars have investigated the relationship between residual oil saturation and capillary number, i.e., study the capillary desaturation curve (CDC). However, the relationship between fracturing fluid flowback efficiency and the capillary number for gas-fracturing fluid two-phase, which are also immiscible two-phase fluids, has rarely been studied [ 16 , 17 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scholars have investigated the relationship between residual oil saturation and capillary number, i.e., study the capillary desaturation curve (CDC). However, the relationship between fracturing fluid flowback efficiency and the capillary number for gas-fracturing fluid two-phase, which are also immiscible two-phase fluids, has rarely been studied [ 16 , 17 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The performance of surfactants as flowback aids also depends on their ability to lower IFT and concomitant capillary forces, allowing both the fracturing fluid and the oil to more easily traverse the narrow pore throats which comprise the microfracture networks (Kim et al, 2016; Liang et al, 2017), for which studies have demonstrated positive correlations between reductions in capillary pressure and fluid‐oil IFT and improved hydrocarbon permeabilities (Liang et al, 2015). In general, it is recognized that surfactants useful in the application will reduce IFT to within the range of low, ~0.1 mN/m, to ultralow, <0.001 mN/m, levels (Chai et al, 2019; Mansour et al, 2021; Tangirala & Sheng, 2018; Wijaya & Sheng, 2020b). However, it is important to recognize that the selection and use of surfactants is quite system dependent and not always straightforward.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the work of some researchers has illustrated that boosting flowback recovery rates does not always lead to improved oil production. Wijaya and Sheng (2020b) have argued that while a notable reduction in IFT enhances flowback, a more modest reduction is desirable to increase oil productivity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such staged fracturing in a shale gas reservoir generally lasts for a long time, following by a period of shut-in, and then a large-scale fracture network could be formed. , Therefore, both the contact surface and contact time between the fracturing fluid and reservoir are large, resulting in a large amount of fracturing fluid imbibition and retention in a shale gas reservoir . Meanwhile, the capillary force to imbibe aqueous phase is large because a shale is generally hydrophilic and has a small pore size. , The fracturing fluid is easy to enter and difficult to exit, resulting in a low flow back efficiency of a shale gas well. A large amount of retained fracturing fluid that does not flow back tends to be trapped in the matrix near the fracture network or in the unpropped fractures closing within a relatively short time after hydraulic fracturing . It has been demonstrated that a short-term aqueous retention in a shale gas reservoir could be beneficial to inducing small cracks due to the hydration of clay minerals and even displacing methane originally adsorbed in the matrix. , However, it is believed that the retained fracturing fluid in a reservoir would block the gas transport and finally result in the formation damage through aqueous phase trapping (APT) in a long run, which severely restricts the stimulation effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%