MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967761474 · doi:10.2118/110333-ms

Microseismic Monitoring of a Restimulation Treatment to a Permian Basin San Andres Dolomite Horizontal Well

2007· article· en· W1967761474 on OpenAlexaff
J. Quirein, Calvin Kessler, Jim M. Trela, S. Zannoni, Bruce Cornish, Robert J. Brewer, Darrell Gordy, Will Pettitt, Christian Walker, J. Laney, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismGeologySeismologyAzimuthDolomiteHydraulic fracturingFracture (geology)Petroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The results of a microseismic monitoring of a multi-stage refracturing treatment of a Permian Basin San Andres dolomite interval in an open-hole horizontal well will be presented in this paper. The treatment well has a horizontal well trajectory of approximately 3,000 feet within the reservoir section and had been extensively acid fractured during earlier production enhancement operations. The microseismic mapping objectives of the re-fracturing treatment for each of the stages were to characterize the azimuthal orientation of the fractures, the length of each wing, fracture height, and overall stimulation effectiveness. The study discusses mapping microseismic events in a challenging re-fracturing environment. The microseismic activities generated during a re-fracturing treatment may be very low in acoustic energy and detection may be problematic, compared to the acoustic energy released during initial hydraulic fracture propagation. In this study, few microseismic events were detected, and this data indicates that the previously propagated fractures created preferential paths for fluid flow thus reducing the propagation of a new fracture network. In fact, for the stage located the furthest from the monitor well, no microseismic events were detected. This was consistent with an Instrument Magnitude Analysis performed on the located microseismic events from the other stages that showed events further than 1,400 feet away from the monitor well were not detectable. A chemical packer was used for zonal isolation, and ball- activated sliding sleeves were used for selective injectivity for each stage along the horizontal well in the re-fracturing treatment. The operation of the sliding sleeves, for each stage and the ball drops, generated compressional and shear events which were detected by the geophone array in the monitor well. This confirmed that the instrumentation was able to detect events between the treatment well and monitor well in this job and that the microsesimic events induced during the re-stimulation treatment were at a much lower energy. The low-energy events that were located confirmed the ball- activated sleeve worked correctly and the induced fractures stayed in zone. However, the source locations detected did not delineate clear linear propagation of hydrofractures from the wellbore but described a complex fracture network.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207