MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4232466774 · doi:10.2523/70009-ms

Fracturing with Crosslinked Methanol in Water-Sensitive Formations

2001· article· en· W4232466774 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark R. Malone

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationMethanolFossil fuelComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringGeologyEngineeringChemistryLibrary scienceWaste management

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Fracturing with Crosslinked Methanol in Water-Sensitive Formations Mark R. Malone Mark R. Malone BJ Services Company USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, May 2001. Paper Number: SPE-70009-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/70009-MS Published: May 15 2001 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Malone, Mark R. "Fracturing with Crosslinked Methanol in Water-Sensitive Formations." Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, May 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/70009-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractThe use of methanol in fracturing is not new technology. Its origin and application in hydraulic fracturing can be traced back to the 1960's. However, advances in fracturing fluid chemistry and breaker technology have improved dramatically creating new systems such as crosslinked methanol, the subject of this paper. Methanol has been utilized in the well stimulation industry for many years to take advantage of its low surface tension properties and miscibility with various formation fluids. This paper will discuss advances in crosslinked methanol system technology, system compatabilities, field application and practical safety precautions. The fluid system rheological properties and proper breaker application will be discussed as well.In recent years, the industry has become more aware of the challenges associated with formations recognized as "water sensitive". These issues can be associated with mobile and swelling clays, or undersaturation of the formation, otherwise known as aqueous phase trapping. The paper will discuss these issues as they pertain to proper fluid selection and more specifically, the selection of crosslinked methanol as a fracturing fluid.Formation properties of zones treated with crosslinked methanol will be presented as well as post fracture treatment results.IntroductionCrosslinked anhydrous methanol is an excellent fracture fluid system comprised of approximately 96%-100% pure methanol developed to stimulate low permeability water sensitive formations. In the late 1960's, fracturing fluid systems incorporating carbon dioxide (CO2) and methanol saw wide usage and some success in fracturing applications. These systems were used in an attempt to place proppant into a hydraulically induced fracture without the potential damage associated with water on "tight" formations displaying water sensitive tendencies. In the early 1970's, certain patents were awarded for a methanol fluid system termed "Vapor Frac," which consisted of transporting propping agents in gelled alcohol and CO21. This system was used for several years with varying degrees of success due to limited sand transport capabilities and poor fluid leak-off properties. In 1980, the first crosslinked methanol system was introduced to the industry. However, at this time the system incorporated 80% pure methanol and 20% water. While this system was compatible with CO2, it did not fully address the water sensitivity issue. By the late 1980's the first pure (96% methanol plus) methanol fluid system was developed and introduced to the industry, and saw wide use throughout Western Canada.In late 1992, additional opportunities to apply this technology presented themselves and research was undertaken to apply new fluid technology to crosslinked methanol. The system was introduced in Argentina; originally, to reduce treatment cost relative to CO2 foam systems prevalent at that time. Since then, more than 200 jobs have been pumped2. The accumulated experience gained in Argentina further enhanced and expanded the original intended applications.In late 1998, depressed crude oil prices and a subsequent decline in drilling operations in the Permian Basin caused pumping service companies to seek applications for this improved crosslinked methanol fluid system in existing producing wells. The hope was to create a stimulation market in gas wells perceived as water sensitive, depleted or damaged to a point that conventional stimulation was not believed to be an option. It is in this application that crosslinked methanol has seen its greatest success in the Permian Basin. Keywords: drillstem testing, aqueous phase saturation, spe 70009, petroleum society, crosslinked methanol, methanol treatment, fracturing fluid, bj service company, saturation, methanol Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Formation Evaluation & Management, Fracturing materials (fluids, proppant), Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2001. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

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: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,703
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,601

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 savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,203
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · 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'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
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

Citations6
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery ConferenceMême sujetHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisTravaux en français237 207