Demonstrates inter-well interference impacts recovery efficiency in shale gas reservoirs, suggesting optimal spacing and arrangement guidelines.
Inter-well interference in multi-well pad development is a critical factor influencing the recovery efficiency of shale gas reservoirs. This study presents a comprehensive semi-analytical model to characterize the transient pressure behavior and interference mechanisms of multi-well multi-stage fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs). Utilizing point source functions and the principle of superposition, the model accounts for complex shale gas transport mechanisms, including gas desorption, diffusion, and real-gas compressibility via pseudo-pressure transformation. The proposed model is validated against the industrial standard numerical simulator KAPPA-Saphir, showing an excellent match across most flow regimes, with a maximum relative error of 3.2% and an average relative error of less than 1% across the entire production period. The results identify five distinct flow stages: fracture linear flow, fracture radial flow, compound linear flow, compound radial flow, and boundary-dominated flow. Sensitivity analysis reveals that decreasing the inter-well spacing significantly shortens the fracture radial flow duration, while longitudinal staggering of wellbore centers effectively mitigates early-time interference and promotes more uniform reservoir drainage. Furthermore, it is observed that in multi-well systems, inner wells suffer from more severe energy competition and faster pressure depletion than peripheral wells. Based on these findings, it is proposed that the inter-well spacing should exceed four times the fracture half-length, and a staggered fracture arrangement (the relative positions in the x-direction of the fractures between the wells are not the same) should be prioritized. This work provides a robust theoretical framework and practical guidelines for optimizing well spacing and infill drilling strategies in shale gas reservoirs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: