WH
W.L. Horeman
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Accurate estimation of the minimum horizontal stress is essential for well design, drilling safety, and predicting induced seismicity. In many regions of the Netherlands, however, only formation integrity tests (FIT) and leak-off tests (LOT) are available, raising the question of whether these drilling tests can be used to reliably infer the minimum horizontal stress. This study evaluates the reliability of stress estimation from hydraulic fracturing data, with a particular focus on the differences between fracture initiation and closure pressures.A comprehensive dataset of extended leak-off tests (XLOT), micro-fracture tests, and conventional LOT/FIT data is analysed. Multiple closure interpretation methods are compared, and their variability, bias, and applicability are quantified. In addition, initiation-based pressures are evaluated within a mechanical framework, including sensitivity analyses and stress consistency checks.The results show that closure-derived pressures provide the most reliable estimate of the minimum horizontal stress, whereas initiation-based pressures are strongly influenced by near-wellbore effects and operational conditions. Closure interpretation is inherently method-dependent, with inter-method differences up to 25~bar, significantly exceeding the repeatability within a single method. Among the evaluated techniques, the semilogarithmic derivative method demonstrates the best balance between robustness and applicability.Pressures from FIT and LOT tests often exceed closure-derived minimum horizontal stress and exhibit large variability, including non-physical results in a significant fraction of cases. While these pressures can be interpreted as upper or lower bounds within a mechanical framework, their quantitative reliability is limited. Furthermore, an offset data case study from nearby wells did not provide a reliable predictor the minimum horizontal stress.This study establishes a hierarchical interpretation framework in which closure-derived pressures form the primary estimate of the minimum horizontal stress, while initiation-based pressures provide only supplementary constraints.
...
...
Accurate estimation of the minimum horizontal stress is essential for well design, drilling safety, and predicting induced seismicity. In many regions of the Netherlands, however, only formation integrity tests (FIT) and leak-off tests (LOT) are available, raising the question of whether these drilling tests can be used to reliably infer the minimum horizontal stress. This study evaluates the reliability of stress estimation from hydraulic fracturing data, with a particular focus on the differences between fracture initiation and closure pressures.A comprehensive dataset of extended leak-off tests (XLOT), micro-fracture tests, and conventional LOT/FIT data is analysed. Multiple closure interpretation methods are compared, and their variability, bias, and applicability are quantified. In addition, initiation-based pressures are evaluated within a mechanical framework, including sensitivity analyses and stress consistency checks.The results show that closure-derived pressures provide the most reliable estimate of the minimum horizontal stress, whereas initiation-based pressures are strongly influenced by near-wellbore effects and operational conditions. Closure interpretation is inherently method-dependent, with inter-method differences up to 25~bar, significantly exceeding the repeatability within a single method. Among the evaluated techniques, the semilogarithmic derivative method demonstrates the best balance between robustness and applicability.Pressures from FIT and LOT tests often exceed closure-derived minimum horizontal stress and exhibit large variability, including non-physical results in a significant fraction of cases. While these pressures can be interpreted as upper or lower bounds within a mechanical framework, their quantitative reliability is limited. Furthermore, an offset data case study from nearby wells did not provide a reliable predictor the minimum horizontal stress.This study establishes a hierarchical interpretation framework in which closure-derived pressures form the primary estimate of the minimum horizontal stress, while initiation-based pressures provide only supplementary constraints.
Rising waters, Resilient lives: The Can Tho region in 2075
Multidisciplinary project on the Mekong Delta
Student report
(2024)
-
I.A.J. Helwes, S. Hooijmaijers, W.L. Horeman, J.P. van der Linden, F.D.J. Pallandt, Y. Yang, Luca Iuorio, Anne Baar, J.S. Hoving, J.E.A. Storms
An MDP project performed in the scope of the Delta Futures Lab in collaboration with the Dragon Institute. The report delves into the enviromental threats the Mekong Delta is facing and provides a design framework to deal with these problems. Furthermore, a case study is chosen to display how the framework can be adopted in a practical setting, envisioning what a future looks like where the Mekong Delta co-exists with water.
...
An MDP project performed in the scope of the Delta Futures Lab in collaboration with the Dragon Institute. The report delves into the enviromental threats the Mekong Delta is facing and provides a design framework to deal with these problems. Furthermore, a case study is chosen to display how the framework can be adopted in a practical setting, envisioning what a future looks like where the Mekong Delta co-exists with water.