Numerous simulation studies on the coupling of the seepage field and stress field based on integrated geoengineering approaches have been carried out by scholars, both domestically and internationally, in response to the ongoing changes in the stress field throughout the first hydraulic fracturing production phase. Depending on the solving technique used, this connection can be categorized as full coupling, sequential coupling, or unidirectional coupling. [PERSON] first proposed the idea of a fully connected model in 1994 [1]. This discrete approach simultaneously solves the unknown quantities of the seepage and geomechanical equations. The finite element method and the finite difference method are the two main categories of this approach. [PERSON] (2007) [2] successfully captured the impacts of geomechanics by fully coupling the mathematical equations of nonlinear fluid flow with geomechanical faulting activity. To guarantee the consistency of the pertinent parameters in both models, the coupling of geomechanical faults was then discretized using the finite element approach. To model heterogeneous reservoirs, [PERSON] (1994) [3] proposed a solution simulator that fully couples multiphase flow and geomechanics; the multiphase flow porous media considers multiple physical fields and is discretized using the finite element method, which helps to improve the resolution of saturation solutions and lessen numerical diffusion. In 2017, [PERSON] introduced a one-dimensional fully coupled multiphase flow and geomechanical coupling solver to simulate reservoir parameters during the initial production phase of a fractured well, effectively addressing geomechanical effects and allowing for the same control time step for fluid-stress field parameters [4]. From the considerations, it is evident that full coupling can coordinate fluid and pressure equation balances; however, it necessitates the simultaneous solution of fluid and stress equations, resulting in longer computation times, which makes full coupling more suitable for small-scale modeling and analysis. [PERSON] and [PERSON] proposed a finite element model called sequential coupling, also known as iterative coupling, to address the convergence problems of fully coupled models [5; 6]. The geomechanical and seepage models must be constructed and solved independently for this model; the seepage model concentrates more on time-domain solutions, whilst the stress model highlights the impact of boundary conditions. Before integrating the seepage model's computational parameters, such as temperature and pore pressure, into the geomechanical model for coupling analysis, which calculates stress changes at certain time steps, the seepage model should be solved [7]. A particular type of sequential coupling in which each time increment is iterated just once is called single coupling, sometimes referred to as display coupling. For stress equilibrium solving, this model uses solutions from the full seepage model as equilibrium conditions for the geological model at different dates [8]. Now, single coupling is generally used to forecast reservoir geomechanical parameters and wellbore instability [9]. In conclusion, there are notable differences between the iteration mode, computational efficiency, and adaptability of the various coupling techniques. Considering the microscopic seepage mechanisms of shale oil, this paper tackles the problem of residual oil distribution and stress field reorientation after initial fracture recovery, which requires the integration of seepage equations within porous media and equilibrium equations for the rock, along with intrinsic equations based on porous elasticity theory and the finite element method. To simulate this issue, a multi-field full-coupling approach must be used. It is crucial to examine changes in the stress field before refracturing because, by mechanical principles, the fracture propagation of a hydraulic fracture is aligned with the highest horizontal primary stress.