MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2002574972 · doi:10.2118/2002-095

A Completion Solution for the Paddy Reservoir in Northeast British Columbia: A Case Study

2002· article· en· W2002574972 sur OpenAlexaffabout
J.W. Thompson, Joseph Khoury, S.A. Reader, Border Ireland

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Établissements canadiensSchlumberger (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCompletion (oil and gas wells)Petroleum engineeringGeologyEnvironmental science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The Paddy reservoir, located near the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in northeast British Columbia, Canada is a fluvio-estuarine valley fill sandstone that has moderate to high permeability. Evidence of tectonic stress has been observed during hydraulic fracture treatments in the form of excessive wellbore friction and net pressures. Historically, attempts to fracturestimulate wells have been difficult due to the inability to generate sufficient fracture width necessary for proppant placement. This paper presents a completion solution for the Paddy reservoir in northeast British Columbia that enabled successful placement of propped fracture treatments. Pressure response of past fracture treatments were analyzed to understand the cause of past failures, and to quantify the influence of tectonically induced stress. A recommended completion solution is presented which includes orientated perforating to reduce near-wellbore friction and a process for designing fracture treatments to enable successful placement of proppant. Field examples of the new completion technique are presented which show that near-wellbore friction was reduced by fifty percent, and that up to four times the amount of proppant was placed in the formation compared to past treatments. Pressure match simulation results from the fracture treatments are also presented. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY The Paddy Member forms the upper portion of the Peace River Formation and is distributed over the Peace River area of northwest Alberta and northeast British Columbia. It is underlain by dominantly coarse-grained shoreface deposits of the Cadotte Member and overlain by marine shales of the Shaftesbury Formation. The Paddy Member is made up of thinly bedded sandstones and shales with occasional thin coals. In the study area, the Paddy is approximately 40 metres thick. Reservoir quality, incised valley sandstones, located in the upper part of the unit are up to 18 metres thick. They are dominantly fine to medium and occasionally coarse grained, fairly quartz-rich sandstones with 10–30% chert and other lithic grains. Beds are from centimeter to meter scale in thickness, and show small to large-scale trough cross lamination. Where bedding thickness is reduced, millimeter scale wavy shale laminae are common and are often incorporated into stylolitic concentrations, which greatly reduce vertical permeability. The cleaner sandstones were probably deposited under fluvial conditions with some tidal influence where thin shale laminae are common. The dominant cement in these sandstones is quartz, which substantially occludes intergranular porosity in the study area. Small amounts of carbonate cements also occur but are rarely volumetrically important. In addition to intergranular porosity, a significant amount of microporosity has been generated through the dissolution of detrital grains, primarily chert. The abundance of microporosity in these sandstones, together with low water saturations indicated by wireline log analysis, may be the origin of widely held concern that the Paddy reservoir is susceptible to formation damage through water blocking. Core from the study area indicates that porosity in the Paddy reservoir ranges up to 20% with associated permeability to air at minimal confining pressure of several hundred millidarcies. A minimum porosity cutoff for pay is taken at approximately 8–9%, which is typically associated with 1 md permeability.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,252
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,788

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
Écart entre enseignants0,200 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceMême sujetHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisTravaux en français237 207