Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.18668/NG.2017.01.01
Introduction
3
NAFTA-GAZ
the object, starting from exploration of reservoir formation To emphasize the importance of the consistent integration
[20], through well and drilling design, and ending with well of parameters describing geological medium, the relationship
completion, including reservoir development. The latter in- binding the fundamental mechanical parameters characteriz-
cludes hydraulic fracturing, which is a technological treatment ing the geological objects with the elastic properties, such as
aimed at the generation of an artificial network of fractures, shear (transverse) seismic wave-S wave propagation velocity
allowing for gas flow from the geological formation [14]. At given by Sayers [18], is worth mentioning.
each stage of these operations, it is essential to recognize the
V = a1 – a2 ⋅ ϕ – a3 ⋅ C + a4 ⋅ (S – P)a5 (1)
mechanical properties of the hydrocarbons bearing formation,
within the so called Mechanical Earth Model. The knowledge where:
about the distribution of geomechanical parameters, among V – stands for P-wave velocity [ft/s; m/s],
others, allows for horizontal well section design, reservoir P – pore pressure [psi; MPa],
development design, and also elimination of drilling problems S – overburden pressure [psi; MPa],
which directly translates into drilling time and costs reduction. ϕ – porosity [expressed as percentage or a decimal],
The need for characterization of the geological object, C – clay content [expressed as percentage or a decimal] and
particularly in view of future operations upon the reservoir, the coefficients ai, obtained from well calibration.
is already a well-known matter, what’s more it demands, that
all analyses are performed in ‘3D optical lens’. The subject of this paper is a geomechanical model of
It is also known, that the Mechanical Earth Model, ac- a synthetic object, which allows for the analysis of many
cording to the definition [11] is the numerical representation processes accompanying the real exploitation of hydro-
of “the mechanical state of geological medium”, achieved carbons. Special attention was paid to the presentation of
by integrating mutual relations between distribution of the changes in the state of stress in the geological formation, as
pressure in the rock medium and the pore pressure. a result of exploitation of hydrocarbons and the influence
The integration platform of these parameters, as well as of the initial horizontal stresses relationship (σH /σh), on the
geological, geophysical, laboratory analyses results, well logs effectiveness of stimulation treatments in unconventional
and reservoir engineering data, is 3D seismic. formation.
Geomechanical model also known as Mechanical Earth Mechanical Earth Model integrates data and knowledge
Model (MEM) is by definition given by Herwanger and Kout- about the relationship between:
sabeloulis [11], a numerical representation of the geomechani- • distribution of the rock masses properties (elastic proper-
cal state of the reservoir object, oil field or sedimentary basin. ties and rock strength),
Fault interpretation
Petrophysical Physical
properties properties 1D MEM
Fig. 1. Simplified diagram illustrating Mechanical Earth Model workflow. The Mechanical Earth Model involves a great variety
of data such as seismic, well log data and laboratory analysis results. These data are essential for the modeling, which results
in the identification of perspective areas called sweet spots, through well and design of the drilling process, to the design of
reservoir stimulation treatments, including secondary fracturing [13, changed]
4 Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017
artykuły
• location and state of stresses, in the vicinity of noncon- high pressure fracturing, mixture, behaves in a brittle or
tinuous tectonic elements, a plastic manner, depends on its elastic properties, such as
• pore pressure, Young’s modulus (E) (2) or Poisson’s ratio (v) (3) [1, 2, 4,
• tectonic stress, overburden stress and their impact on the 10, 13, 19].
in situ stresses distribution,
E = δ/ε (2)
• reservoir and overburden architecture in 3 dimensions.
If we take into account the changes over time, of ele- where:
ments mentioned above, we will be dealing with a dynamic E – Young modulus [psi; MPa],
Mechanical Earth Model or 4D MEM [16]. δ – stress [psi; MPa],
For a reliable MEM construction an integration of geologi- ε – relative linear strain.
cal, geophysical, engineering data, previously constructed
v = –εx /εz (3)
static models and the results of reservoir simulations is nec-
essary, as it is presented in Fig. 1. where:
v – Poisson’s ratio,
The role of geomechanics in the reservoir stimulation εx – relative axial strain,
design procedure εz – relative transverse strain.
The success of the intensification treatment through
hydraulic fracturing in the reservoir rock, is dictated by the The knowledge of the spatial distribution of these pa-
susceptibility of geological formation, to produce a complex rameters combined with the information about the value
network of artificial fractures. Thus, for the proper design (magnitude) and direction of the acting stresses, allows for
of the treatment, the recognition of the factors affecting the hydraulic fracturing design, including the geometry of created
brittleness of the rock subjected to the fracturing is crucial. fractures and the pressure, under which the fracturing fluid
Whether the rock mass subjected to the pumped, under should be injected to the target formation.
Hydraulic fracturing
Currently, the common technological process employed to Particularly, due to the poor quality of unconventional
enable economical gas production from the unconventional reservoir parameters, mainly low or almost zero permeability
formations, is hydraulic fracturing. The aim of the treatment (from 0.000001 to 0.0001 mD in shale formations and from
is to improve (enlarge) the contact zone between the reservoir 0.0001 to 0.5 mD in tight sandstones), an intensification of
rock and wellbore, allowing previously trapped gas, to flow treatments for such a formation are required, to enable the eco-
freely into the well. This improved reservoir exposition to the nomic production of natural gas from these formations [5, 15].
wellbore happens through the creation of complex artificial
fractures network, which become a path for the reservoir Secondary fracturing
fluid into the well, in economically viable quantities [15]. Secondary fracturing is one of the re-stimulation treat-
Hydraulic fracturing is the process of injecting the frac- ments, which aims to increase hydrocarbons recovery. It is
turing mixture (usually 90% of water, 9.5% of sand and carried out in formations previously being produced from.
chemical additives, to facilitate the transportation of proppant Sometimes secondary fracturing may affect a different per-
including gelling and anti-corrosion agents and bactericides) spective area, or can be performed in the interval, for which
at a high pressure to the geological formation [22]. When the effects of previous treatment were unsatisfactory, due
the pressure of pumped fluid exceeds rock fracturing pres- to the low degree of fracturing within the interval or poor
sure – the pressure at which the rock breaks, a creation of communication between created fractures. Mostly, however,
new fractures or the reopening of preexisting, sometimes this procedure is performed in order to increase production,
healed with minerals, can be observed [8]. The aperture by creating additional exposure of the reservoir rock to the
of the generated in this way fractures, reaches a few mms wellbore zone, without bearing the expenses for drilling
and their length can reach several tens or even hundreds of a new well.
meters in the horizontal direction and up to tens of meters
in vertical direction. The ingredient with propping proper- The phenomena of fractures reorientation
ties, sustains the effect of the opened fracture, due to the Originally, re-fracturing was a corrective treatment per-
fracture-closure pressure (σh) [22]. formed in wells with low hydrocarbons production, with
Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017 5
NAFTA-GAZ
low ranged fractures or ones revealing a low degree of con- issue and has been the subject of modeling in many experi-
nectivity. There are numerous cases, where the re-stimulation mental studies [18].
of previously fractured reservoirs resulted in a significant Numerous tests carried out under laboratory conditions
increase in the production of hydrocarbons. have shown, that changes in pore pressure acting on the rock
Production tests and calibration of reservoir stimulation matrix, affect the propagation and therefore direction of the
model, taking into account both the presence of the created fractures [18]. In general, the hydraulically induced fractures
orthogonal fractures and anisotropic distribution of perme- propagate along the direction of maximum horizontal stress
ability in the horizontal direction, in many examined boreholes (σH) or perpendicular to the higher stress gradient. Addition-
indicate a high probability of direction change of secondarily ally, the phenomena of fractures reorientation depends on the
formed fractures [23]. existence of anisotropy in the analyzed object. For instance,
In Fig. 2 a sketch of the transverse section of the vertical in the media where the differences of horizontal stresses mag-
section of the borehole shows a primarily created fracture nitude in two mutually perpendicular directions are balanced
oriented along the x axis (σH), as a result of primary hydrau- with naturally occurred anisotropy, the fractures reorientation
lic fracturing, and reoriented along the y axis (σh) part of the cannot take place. The change of pore pressure in the vicin-
fracture, as a result of secondary fracturing. Production of ity of the fracture network penetrating the reservoir, results
hydrocarbons initiated after the formation of the primary in high stress gradient, which may be the direct cause of the
fracture in the x direction, can lead to local changes in the dis- reorientation of the secondarily created fractures. When the
tribution of pore pressure, within an ellipsoidal area (marked changes in stresses distribution reach a critical point, the
with dark blue dashed line) around the borehole and primary gradient decreases gradually with the progressive deple-
fracture (Fig. 2). tion of hydrocarbons. An example of fracture reorientation
was provided in the study by Dozier [7], where the
simulations suggested the possibility of a change in
direction of fracture propagation by 90° with respect to
the original azimuth of the primarily created fracture.
The value (magnitude) of the horizontal stress,
parallel to the direction of the primarily generated
fracture, decreases faster than the magnitude of the
horizontal stress, perpendicular to the fracture. As
a result of changes in the magnitude of stresses, ex-
ceeding the initial magnitude of the differential stress,
the fracture propagation occurs on the plane of the
azimuth, different from the azimuth of the primarily
generated fracture until the fracture leaves the ellipti-
cal area with the altered stress distribution (Fig. 2).
The fractures can further propagate for some dis-
tance, their length depends on the mechanical proper-
Fig. 2. Change of the orientation of the stresses in the rock mass ties of the formation, on the plane with the changed
and observed orthogonal propagation of the fracture azimuth direction.
There are many factors contributing to the size
The border of the region with altered stresses distribution, of the area with altered stresses distribution. Among them
is determined by the isotropic points with the initial magni- are: history of the hydrocarbons exploitation, reservoir pay
tude of horizontal stresses. Reorientation of the principal axis thickness, elastic properties of the pay thickness and the for-
of stresses in the reservoir and propagation of the fracture, mations in close vicinity, the size and geometry of generated
in a different, from the original direction, demonstrates the fractures, permeability of the reservoir formation, and also
response of the pore pressure change in secondary fracturing the difference in magnitude between two horizontal stresses
and unexpected increase of production rate from the wells, before and during the hydrocarbons exploitation. These fac-
subjected to the secondary treatment, which is an effective tors can be subjected to modeling and should be taken into
result after primary fracturing. account at the stage of selecting the wells, which are to be
The idea of the re-orientation of the fractures resulting subjected to re-fracturing. Computer simulations allow to
from the secondary intensification treatment, is not a new determine the optimal point during primary hydrocarbons
6 Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017
artykuły
production, at which a re-stimulation would attain the most of a formation subjected to the successful treatment is Barnett
efficient results. Shale formation, North Fort Worth field (Texas, USA). The ef-
As already mentioned, change in fractures orientation have fects of the treatment were monitored with a group of tiltmeters
been already observed after secondary fracturing. An example installed both, at the surface and along the well trajectory.
Geomechanical modeling
The subject of this study is the phenomenon known from grid refinement method was applied in order to increase the
the literature as “stress shadowing”, which refers to the oc- grid density and therefore increase the resolution in the area
currence of altered min/max horizontal stress ratio, located in of hydrocarbons production.
the area being under hydrocarbons exploitation. This
phenomenon may lead to changes in the direction of
fracture propagation up to 90 degrees, generated after
the period of production, as a result of pore pressure
decrease in the hydrocarbons depletion area.
In the presented case the geomechanical modeling
was performed with the use of a combination of three
Schlumberger software platforms accessible from
Petrel 2013.2, where:
• static model of the reservoir was constructed in
Petrel,
• pore pressure profiles during the 20 year history
of hydrocarbons production were simulated in the
Eclipse reservoir simulator hidden beneath a Res-
Fig. 3. The geometry of the modeled reservoir object consisting of
ervoir Engineering module in Petrel, and finally,
a sandstone layer (dark green) and a layer of shales above (light green)
• geomechanical modeling was performed with the and below (light purple) the reservoir. In the center of the object, a
use of the Visage geomechanical simulator, hidden vertical oriented in the N-S direction fracture is located (marked with
beneath a Reservoir Geomechanics plugin inside the pink dashed line). In the vicinity of the fracture, a gradual grid
Petrel 2013.2. refinement method was applied, in order to increase the grid resolution
in the area of hydrocarbons production
The work within the single Petrel platform allowed
for time-saving use of the same data set, at various
level of the workflow.
Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017 7
NAFTA-GAZ
In the central part of this theoretical object Table 1. The set of parameters calculated from synthetic well logs,
a vertical well, called Well-1, was drilled through necessary in further simulation workflow
the reservoir and underlaying layer of shales. Layer of the model Shale Shale
Sandstone
Based on the available well logs, a distribu- Parameter (upper (lower
(reservoir)
[unit] (range of value) boundary) boundary)
tion of the following parameters necessary for
furher simulation were calculated: permeability Gamma Ray (GR) [API] 250 25 250
(PERM), total porosity (PHIT), effective poros- Effective porosity (PHIE) (0-1.0) 0.05 0.15 0.05
ity (PHIE), pore pressure (PPRS), Gamma Ray Total porosity (PHIT) (0-1.0) 0.06 0.15 0.06
(GR), water saturation (SW). The abbreviations Gas saturation (SG) (0-1.0) 0 0.75 0
are consistent with the API (American Petroleum Water saturation (SW) (0-1.0) 1 0.25 1
Institute). The parameters mentioned above are 0.0001
Permeability (PERM) [mD] 0.0001 0.0001
listed in Table 1. 1000 (fracture)
Poisson’s ratio (PR) (0-1.0) 0.33 0.15 0.33
Reservoir simulation Caliper (CALI) [mm] 216 216 216
Having a necessary grid of the reservoir object Young modulus (YME) (GPa) 41.3685 20.6843 41.3685
constructed and the reservoir properties with rel- Alpha index (ALPH) 3.28 3.28 3.28
evant resolution modeled, the reservoir simulation
was performed in the Reservoir Engineering mod-
ule, in Petrel. In the initial stage of the simulation, reservoir
fluid properties (PVT properties) were defined, as well as the
relative permeability curves. The assumed value of the initial
bed temperature was equal to 77°C, and the weight of natural
Pressure [psi]
8 Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017
artykuły
Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017 9
NAFTA-GAZ
Fig. 9. Distribution of total horizontal stresses (A) and effective horizontal stresses (B) before the hydrocarbons
exploitation (2013) and after one year of exploitation (2014) in the analyzed variant of σH /σh = 1.01
condition from near isotropic to weak anisotropic media. noticed, that in the area in close vicinity of the fracture, after
These three variants of initial horizontal stresses rations one year of hydrocarbons exploitation, the stresses direction
σH /σh, were treated equivalently. It means, they were sub- are strongly altered and their magnitude reveal the most
jected to simulation with the only change of the stress- significant changes in the borehole area.
es ratio, while the distribution of other parameters and On Fig. 10 the changes in distribution of total and effec-
simulation settings were unchanged. It was observed, that tive stresses before and after hydrocarbons production for
the degree of the horizontal stresses orientation change, the variant σH /σh = 1.07, can be seen.
depends on the initial horizontal stress ratio. Among the Vertical stress is dominant in magnitude, and horizontal
tested relations (σH /σh = 1.01; 1.07 and 1.15), the greatest stresses exhibit relationship σH /σh = 1.07. Initially (before the
degree of change in stresses direction was observed for exploitation) the direction of maximum horizontal stress (σH)
10 Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017
artykuły
Fig. 10. Distribution of total horizontal stresses (A) and effective horizontal stresses (B) before hydrocarbons
exploitation (2013) and after one year of exploitation (2014) in the analyzed variant of σH/σh = 1.07
Fig. 11. Distribution of total horizontal stresses (A) and effective horizontal stresses (B) before the hydrocarbons
exploitation (2013) and after one year of exploitation (2014) in the analyzed variant of σH /σh = 1.15
was consistent with the fracture direction (N-S). A visible change between total and effective stress magnitude can be
change between total and effective stress magnitude can observed, as the magnitude of effective stress is reduced with
be observed, as the magnitude of effective stress is reduced reference to total stress, by the pore pressure decreasing with
with reference to total stress, by the pore pressure, dropping ongoing production. After one year of hydrocarbons produc-
with ongoing production. After one year of hydrocarbons tion, no rotation of the horizontal stresses was noticed.
production, a very slight rotation of the horizontal stresses The initial position of the stress tensor at the borders of
can be noticed. the reservoir in all of the presented cases is interpreted firstly,
In turn, changes in the distribution of the total and effective as result of ongoing exploitation, and secondly, because of
horizontal stress, before and during ongoing production, for the effect of transition in the grid geometry (grid cell size)
the variant σH /σh = 1.15 were presented on Fig. 11. in the contact zone between the reservoir and the sideburden
The dominant in magnitude is vertical stress and horizontal area of the object.
stresses exhibit relationship σH /σh = 1.15. Initially (before the The results of the three subjected to the analysis, examples
exploitation) the direction of maximum horizontal stress (σH) (σH /σh = 1.01; 1.07 and 1.15) confirms the theoretically ex-
was consistent with the fracture direction (N-S). A visible pected behavior.
Conclusions
1. The concept and procedures within Mechanical Earth (σH /σh = 1.01; 1.07 and 1.15) subjected to simulation, it is
Model allow for visualizing the state of stresses and track- concluded that for the assumed parameters of geological
ing the changes based on geological, geophysical and masses, secondary fracturing treatment will bring the best
reservoir engineering data. results, when the ratio of the horizontal stresses is close
2. Decrease of the pore pressure due to ongoing production to isotropic (i.e. σH /σh = 1.01).
of hydrocarbons is the direct cause of change in the state 5. This means, that the best results refer to the refracturing of
of stresses. the initial isotropic medium. However, the possibility of the
3. The above phenomena cause a gradual decrease of total return to the original isotropic state of horizontal stresses of
horizontal stress during the production of hydrocarbons. the reservoir, which acquired anisotropic character during
4. Among examined relationships between horizontal stresses hydrocarbons exploitation, cannot be excluded.
Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017 11
NAFTA-GAZ
6. In the case of the relation between two horizontal stresses time accuracy and treatment parameters of the secondary
σH /σh = 1.01, the direction of the axis parallel to the σH fracturing. In the case of the examined model, a critical
rotates by about 45 degrees. period for the refracturing appears to be 10 years of hy-
7. Analysis of the visualized horizontal stresses in the frac- drocarbons production, under assumed initial horizontal
ture vicinity and the surrounding area, allow to specify stresses relationship σH /σh = 1.01.
Summary
Hydraulic fracturing treatment preceded with reliable problems with diagnosis of the complications and selection
geomechanical analysis of the reservoir, whether carried of wells, that were about to be subjected to the treatment.
out immediately after well completion or during later stages Over the last two decades numerous cases of successful
of the reservoir lifetime (refracturing among others), helps secondary fracturing were recorded in hydrocarbons reser-
to avoid near-wellbore area damage and the hydrocarbons voirs in North America, Russia, China, Brazil and Algeria.
production increase. This is realized through the creation of Obviously, hydrocarbon deposits around the world, have
the artificial fracture network, and therefore, enabling free the potential for production increase, particularly those in
flow of the gas from the unconventional formation into the the advanced stages of exploitation. In most of the cases,
wellbore. The practice of stimulation treatment by fracturing the use of such treatments is much more economical than
the geological formation goes way back to 1947, but early determining optimal location, well design, drilling and
application of hydraulic fracturing was not successful, due to completion of new well.
Please cite as: Nafta-Gaz 2017, no. pp. 3–13, DOI: 10.18668/NG.2017.01.01
Article contributed to the Editor 18.07.2016. Approved for publication 9.11.2016.
The article is the result of research conducted in connection with the project: Methodology of determining sweet spots on the basis
of geochemical, petrophysical, and geomechanical properties, based on the correlation of the results of laboratory examinations
with the geophysical measurements and the 3D generation model, co-funded by the National Centre for Research and Develop-
ment as part of the programme BLUE GAS – POLISH SHALE GAS. Contract No. BG1/MWSSSG/13.
Literature
[1] Akbar Ali, Brown A.H, Delgado T., Lee R., Plumb D., Smir- Economy Recovery SCPG/CSEG/CWLS convention in Cal-
nov D., Marsden N., Prado-Velarde R., Ramsey E., Spooner L., gary 2011, pp. 1–9.
Stone D., Stouffer T.: Watching Rocks Change-Mechanical [9] Fertl W.H.: Abnormal Formation Pressures. Developments
Earth Modeling. Oilfield Review 2008, vol. 9, pp. 22–39. in Petroleum Science, Elsevier 1976, 382 pp.
[2] Barton N.: Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and [10] Fjaer E., Holt R.M., Horsrud P., Raaen A.M., Risnes R.: Pe-
anisotropy. Taylor & Francis Group, London 2007, 109 pp. troleum Related Rock Mechanics. 2nd Edition. Elsevier 2008,
[3] Bellotti P., Giacca D.: Seismic data can detect overpressures. 20 pp.
Oil and Gas Journal 1978, vol. 4, pp. 148–158. [11] Herwanger J., Koutsabeloulis N.: Seismic Geomechanics:
[4] Bjørlykke K.: Petroleum Geoscience: From sedimentary How to Build and Calibrate Geomechanical Models using
Environments to Rock Physics. Springer 2010, 288 p. 3D and 4D Seismic Data. EAGE Publications 2011, 17 pp.
[5] Castillo D.A., Moss D.: Reservoir geomechanics applied to [12] Jędrzejowska-Tyczkowska H., Malaga M., Żukowska K.:
drilling and completion programs in challenging formations: Dynamic seismic velocity modeling. First Break EAGE Pu-
North West shelf, Timor Sea, North Sea and Colombia. Au- blications 2011, vol. 29, pp. 73–76.
stralian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association [13] Jędrzejowska-Tyczkowska, H., Słota-Valim M.: Mechanicz-
Journal 2000, vol. 16, pp. 509–520. ny Model Ziemi – jako nowy i konieczny warunek sukcesu
[6] Ciechanowska M., Matyasik I., Such P.: Uwarunkowania roz- w poszukiwaniach i eksploatacji złóż niekonwencjonalnych.
woju wydobycia gazu z polskich formacji łupkowych. Naf- Nafta-Gaz 2012, no. 6, pp. 329–340.
ta-Gaz 2013, no. 12, pp. 963–975. [14] Kasza P.: Efektywne szczelinowanie łupków w Polsce. Nafta-
[7] Dozier G., Elbel J., Fielder E., Hoover R., Lemp S., Reeves S., Gaz 2013, no. 11, pp. 807–813.
Siebrits E., Wisler D., Wolhart S.: Refracturing works. Oil- [15] King G.E.: Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What every represen-
field Review 2003, vol. 15, pp. 38–53. tative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, univer-
[8] Dunphy R., Campagna D.: Fractures, Elastic Moduli & Stress: sity researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about es-
Geological Controls on Hydraulic Fracture Geometry in the timating frac risk and improving frac performance in Unco-
Horn River Basin. Conference Paper at Energy, Environment, nventional gas and oil wells. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Tech-
12 Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017
artykuły
nology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas 6–8 Febru- [19] Slatt R.M.: Important geological properties of unconventio-
ary 2012. nal resource shales. Central European Journal of Geoscien-
[16] Plumb R., Edwards S., Pidcock G., Lee D., Stacey B.: The ces 2011, no. 3, pp. 435–448.
Mechanical Earth Model concept and its application to hi- [20] Sowiżdżał K., Stadtmüller M., Lis-Śledziona A., Kaczmar-
gh-risk well construction projects Schlumberger. IADC/SPE czyk W.: 3D geological modeling for prospectiveness evalu-
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana 23–25 Febru- ation of shale formations. Nafta-Gaz 2015, no. 12, pp. 963–975.
ary 2000. [21] Themig D.: The key to Europe’s unconventional success
[17] Sayers C.M., Smit T.J.H., van Eden C., Wervelman R., Bach- may not be found in the Barnett Shale: Critical Issues for
mann B., Fitts T., Bingham J., McLachlan K., Hooyman P., Unconventionals Europe 2013. Conference and Exhibition,
Noeth S., Mandhiri D.: Use of reflection tomography to pre- Warsaw, 23–24 October 2013.
dict pore pressure in overpressured reservoir sands. SEG [22] U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Natio-
Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. 2003. nal Energy Technology Laboratory: Modern Shale Gas De-
[18] Siebrits E., Elbel J.L., Hoover R.S., Diyashev I.R., Hol- velopment in United State: A Primer, April 2009.
ditch R.T., Griffin L.G., Demetrius S.L., Wright C.A., Da- [23] Zoback M.D.: Reservoir Geomechanics. Cambridge 2010,
vidson B.M., Steinsberger N.P., Hill, D.G.: Refracture re- 380 p.
orientation enhances gas production in Barnett Shale tight
gas wheld in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
ZAPRASZAMY WWW.SROdKISMAROWE2017.INIg.Pl
Nafta-Gaz, nr 1/2017 13