对四篇新的DFIT论文的评论：（a）来自EGS合作实验室的In-Situ测量;（b）Bedretto项目的技术比较;（c）62个DFIT的统计审查;和（d）一篇提倡切线法的文章
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
摘要：
这篇文章提供了最近四篇关于诊断裂缝注入测试（DFIT）的论文的评论。第一篇论文使用原位变形测量来直接观察裂缝注入-衰减测试期间的裂缝打开和闭合（Guglielmi等人，2022年）。第二个比较了Bedretto项目（Broker和Ma，2022）中一系列断裂/注入测试中的各种应力测量技术。第三个统计审查了将McClure等人（2019年）的解释程序应用于9个不同页岩区带的62个DFIT的结果（McClure等人，2022年）。第四篇是由切线法估计DFIT闭合应力的倡导者在JPT（石油技术杂志）上撰写的专栏文章（Buijs，2021; 2022）。
英文摘要：
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).
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
