2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of wettability alteration and IFT reduction on mitigating water blocking for low-permeability oil-wet rocks after hydraulic fracturing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some other experimental results show that the presence of divalent cations can significantly increase surface wettability compared to monovalent cations [2,17]. In addition, there are related studies claiming that ion type and strength significantly affect the wettability of the oil-brine-rock system, but the results were mostly obtained from macroscopic changes such as contact angle and interfacial tension [18][19][20]. Therefore, quantitative research and responsible mechanisms for wettability alteration are a great need.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some other experimental results show that the presence of divalent cations can significantly increase surface wettability compared to monovalent cations [2,17]. In addition, there are related studies claiming that ion type and strength significantly affect the wettability of the oil-brine-rock system, but the results were mostly obtained from macroscopic changes such as contact angle and interfacial tension [18][19][20]. Therefore, quantitative research and responsible mechanisms for wettability alteration are a great need.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the system was stabilized, a 3-step coreflood sequence was conducted on this core sample. The broken/degraded guar system has a higher density than the formation brine; to improve the stability of the displacement front during the coreflood, the mimicked fracturing fluid after gel breaking was injected from the bottom to the top of the core sample while the mimicked brine was injected in the opposite direction [41][42][43]. Details are as follows.…”
Section: Coreflood Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The corresponding matrix notation is f = kd (19) where and are the node force, N; k is the stiffness matrix of the spring element, N/m; d is the node displacement vector, m; f is the node force vector, N. During SLFTP, the previously created fractures were plugged by diverting agents; thus the injected fracturing fluid and proppants were not able to flow back to the wellbore and retained within fractures. Moreover, the fluid leak-off rate was low due to the low-permeability [36][37][38]; thus the fracturing fluid and proppants trapped in the fracture space will prevent the previous fractures from closure. The propped fractures would squeeze the surrounding rocks and alter local stress fields, which may affect the injection pressure of the subsequent fractures created in other layers.…”
Section: Spring Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%