Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTrinh, Quoc Nghia
dc.contributor.authorHagen, Simon Alexander
dc.contributor.authorStrømsvik, Helene
dc.contributor.authorLarsen, Trond Erik
dc.contributor.authorGrøv, Eivind
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-03T15:38:31Z
dc.date.available2023-03-03T15:38:31Z
dc.date.created2023-01-16T09:18:48Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn0723-2632
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3055865
dc.description.abstractHydraulic fracturing is one of the most common methods to determine in-situ rock stress. The interpretation of the shut-in pressure to determine the minor principal stress is an important element of this method, and many different methods to interpret shut-in pressure have been studied and developed throughout the years. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. With more than 50 years of research and development within the rock stress measurement field, especially in HF, SINTEF has established two practical ways of defining shut-in pressure. These methods are independent and termed zero flow and water hammer. The zero flow method has been used by SINTEF in more than 130 projects over the last 30 years. The methods clearly differ from the other methods as they are based on singular events in the development of pressure/flow versus time which enables us to read the shut-in pressure directly during testing. In this paper a comparison is made between different methods for interpretation of shut-in pressure, including 12 existing methods and the two SINTEF methods. Comprehensive laboratory tests were performed, and a field test was selected from SINTEF's database for demonstration and comparison of the methods. The SINTEF methods have been developed mainly for use in hard rock environment where the rock is a jointed aquifer and with low permeability. The application of the two methods have traditionally been hydroelectric power development, different types of tunnel and cavern projects, and also in mineral mining. The methods have not been used in deep petroleum applications such as oil wells or offshore in porous rock types. Highlights of the article: • There are 12 established methods for shut-in pressure estimation in hydraulic fracturing. All methods have certain advantages and disadvantages. • SINTEF has developed two methods namely zero flow and water hammer. • The SINTEF methods are documented through laboratory and in-situ tests. • A comparison of the two SINTEF methods with the existing methods has been done.en_US
dc.description.abstractTwo New Methods for Defining Shut-In Pressure in Hydraulic Fracturing Testsen_US
dc.description.abstractHydraulic fracturing is one of the most common methods to determine in situ rock stress. The interpretation of the shut-in pressure to determine the minor principal stress is an important element of this method, and many different methods to interpret shut-in pressure have been studied and developed throughout the years. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. With more than 50 years of research and development within the rock stress measurement field, especially in HF, SINTEF has established two practical ways of defining shut-in pressure. These methods are independent and termed zero flow and water hammer. The zero flow method has been used by SINTEF in more than 130 projects over the last 30 years. The methods clearly differ from the other methods as they are based on singular events in the development of pressure/flow versus time which enables us to read the shut-in pressure directly during testing. In this paper, a comparison is made between different methods for interpretation of shut-in pressure, including 12 existing methods and the 2 SINTEF methods. Comprehensive laboratory tests were performed, and a field test was selected from SINTEF’s database for demonstration and comparison of the methods. The SINTEF methods have been developed mainly for use in hard rock environment where the rock is a jointed aquifer and with low permeability. The application of the two methods has traditionally been hydroelectric power development, different types of tunnel, and cavern projects, and also in mineral mining. The methods have not been used in deep petroleum applications such as oil wells or offshore in porous rock types.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectHydropoweren_US
dc.subjectHydropoweren_US
dc.titleTwo New Methods for Defining Shut-In Pressure in Hydraulic Fracturing Testsen_US
dc.title.alternativeTwo New Methods for Defining Shut-In Pressure in Hydraulic Fracturing Testsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Berg- og petroleumsfag: 510en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Rock and petroleum sciences: 510en_US
dc.source.journalRock Mechanics and Rock Engineeringen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00603-022-03212-z
dc.identifier.cristin2107365
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 320654en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal