ReviewACS omega2024
Main Control Factors of Fracture Propagation in Reservoir: A Review.
Review in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fracture distribution and internal control factors after the fracturing of unconventional oil and gas reservoirs determine the reservoir reforming effect to a large extent. Based on the research of global scholars on the influencing factors of fracture propagation, comprehensive theoretical model, and numerical simulation, this Review systematically discusses the influence of internal geological factors and external engineering factors of unconventional oil and gas reservoir on fracture propagation behavior and summarizes the current problems and development trends in fracture research. The results show the following: (1) The fracture propagation is a comprehensive process constrained by lithology and mineral composition, water saturation, nonhomogeneity, natural weak surface, and ground stress. (2) External engineering factors have a meaningful control effect on fracture propagation; the type and temperature of fracturing fluids can also change the mechanical properties of different rocks, thus affecting the fracture propagation pattern. (3) The existing fracture propagation models have certain limitations, and their computational reliability still needs to be further verified. (4) Numerical simulation can break through the limitations of physical simulation, but different simulation methods have different shortcomings and applicability. In the future, we should focus on: (1) finding parameters to quantitatively characterize heterogeneity at the 3D level, which is an important direction to study the effect of heterogeneity on fracture propagation; (2) introducing computerized methods to establish a geological model that considers multiple factors and combining it with numerical simulation software to study fracture propagation; (3) considering the characteristics of fluid-liquid-solid phase comprehensively, establishing a suitable THL coupling equation; (4) how the interaction mode of fracturing fracture is combined with the natural fracture geometry, and how the fracture is affected by fracturing engineering parameters such as fluid injection rate and viscosity of fracturing fluid; and (5) geology-engineering dynamic integration, which is an important direction to be carried out in the future.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.