论文标题
关于四本新的DFIT论文的评论：（a）EGS Collaber的原位测量； （b）比较Bedretto项目的技术； （c）62 dfits的统计审查； （d）提倡切线方法的文章
Commentary on Four New DFIT Papers: (a) In-Situ Measurements from EGS Collab; (b) Comparison of Techniques at the Bedretto Project; (c) Statistical Review of 62 DFITs; and (d) An Article Advocating the Tangent Method
论文作者
论文摘要
这篇文章提供了有关诊断性骨折注射测试（DFIT）的最近四篇论文的评论。第一篇论文使用原位变形测量值直接观察断裂注射测试期间裂缝的打开和闭合（Guglielmi等，2022）。第二个比较了Bedretto项目的一系列断裂/注射测试中的各种应力测量技术（Broker and MA，2022）。第三次统计回顾了应用McClure等人的解释程序的结果。 （2019年）至九种不同的页岩戏中的62个DFIT（McClure等，2022）。第四是由JPT（石油技术杂志）撰写的专栏，该方法是估计DFIT闭合应力的切线方法（Buijs，2021; 2022）。
This post provides commentary on recent four papers on diagnostic fracture injection testing (DFIT). The first paper uses in-situ deformation measurements to directly observe fractures opening and closing during fracture injection-falloff tests (Guglielmi et al., 2022). The second compares various stress measurement techniques in a series of fracture/injection tests from the Bedretto project (Broker and Ma, 2022). The third statistically reviews results from applying the interpretation procedure from McClure et al. (2019) to 62 DFITs across nine different shale plays (McClure et al., 2022). The fourth is an op-ed written in JPT (Journal of Petroleum Technology) by an advocate of the tangent method for estimating DFIT closure stress (Buijs, 2021; 2022).
