Fracture Type Determination Using Critical Stress Analysis
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods for determining fracture types in subsurface formations are inadequate, as they fail to accurately identify open and closed fractures, which affects hydrocarbon production and well placement strategies.
Innovation Solution
The method involves receiving seismic data, performing kinematic analysis, generating fracture planes, creating a mechanical earth model, and conducting a critical stress analysis to categorize fractures as open or closed based on stress conditions.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If current methods are used to determine fracture types, then the process is simple, but the accuracy of identifying open and closed fractures is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The method segments the fracture identification process into distinct analytical stages: kinematic analysis to determine fracture plane geometry, mechanical earth model generation to establish stress conditions, and critical stress analysis to classify fracture types. This segmentation allows each stage to be optimized independently, improving overall identification accuracy while managing complexity through systematic decomposition of the analysis workflow.
Solution Approach 2:
The method performs preliminary kinematic analysis to characterize fracture plane geometry and generate mechanical earth models before conducting the final fracture type classification. By preparing stress condition models and geometric parameters in advance, the critical stress analysis can focus specifically on classification accuracy, thereby improving measurement precision while organizing complexity into preparatory and execution phases.
2Productivity
If comprehensive stress analysis is performed to accurately identify fractures, then production optimization improves, but computational time and resources increase
Solution Approach 1:
The method performs preliminary kinematic analysis and mechanical earth model generation to pre-characterize fracture geometry and stress conditions before the final classification stage. By preparing these foundational models in advance, the critical stress analysis can proceed more efficiently with pre-computed parameters, reducing the computational time required for the actual fracture type identification while maintaining comprehensive analysis quality for production optimization.
3Measurement precision
If fracture identification accuracy is improved, then well placement optimization improves, but the complexity of data processing increases
Solution Approach 1:
The data processing workflow is segmented into three distinct modules: kinematic analysis for geometric characterization, mechanical earth model generation for stress condition establishment, and critical stress analysis for fracture type classification. Each module processes specific data types and produces targeted outputs, which improves fracture identification accuracy through specialized analysis while managing overall data processing complexity through systematic organization and modular processing steps.
Data Source
Figure 1.1~1.2
Figure 1.3~1.4
Figure 2
AI summary
Various implementations directed to determining a fracture type using stress analysis are provided. In one implementation, a method may include receiving seismic data acquired in a seismic survey of a region of interest. The method may also include performing a kinematic analysis on the seismic data. The method may further include generating fracture planes from the seismic data based on the kinematic analysis. The method may additionally include generating a mechanical earth model based on the seismic data. The method may further include performing a critical stress analysis on the fracture planes based on the mechanical earth model. The method may also include determining a fracture type of respective fractures in the fracture planes based on the critical stress analysis.