MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995281069 · doi:10.2118/123581-ms

Effects of High Process-Zone Stress in Shale Stimulation Treatments

2009· article· en· W1995281069 on OpenAlexaff
Muthukumarappan Ramurthy, R. D. Barree, Earuch F. Broacha, John D. Longwell, Donald P. Kundert, C. Tamayo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsNalcor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil shaleGeologyWell stimulationLead (geology)StimulationShale gasMining engineeringPetroleumReservoir engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the last few years shale plays across North America have received significant attention because of their revenue potential and the supplementary reserves they add to the U.S. natural-gas reserves. However, the flow capacity (i.e., permeability) of these shales is very low and, therefore, requires some sort of stimulation to make them economically viable. Problems during stimulation treatments can lead to "pressure outs" and screenouts. One of the main reasons that lead to "pressure outs" is high process-zone stress (PZS). With high PZS, the chance for pressuring out is higher than screenout (i.e., one can still flush the job at lower rates provided the sand has not settled in the wellbore). The purpose of this work is to show the effects of high PZS in shale stimulation treatments and the associated production from such zones. Examples are presented from three shale wells in the Rocky Mountain region. Well A provides examples from the Gothic and Hovenweep shales, while Well B consists of an example from the Mancos shale. A Diagnostic Fracture-Injection Test (DFIT) was performed in the Gothic and Hovenweep shales before the stimulation treatment, and the results obtained point to very high PZS. History-match analysis of the Gothic and Upper or Main Hovenweep stimulation treatments using a grid-oriented, fully functional three-dimensional (3D) fracture simulator confirmed the same. Solutions are provided to overcome this effect and successfully "place" the stimulation treatment. However, the production associated with such high PZS zones is not very encouraging. Well A is temporarily abandoned because of poor production, and the Mancos shale well with high PZS (Well B) is one of the poor producers in the field. Finally, another example (Well C) from a successful Mancos test is also included in this work to show the difference in production between high- and low-PZS zones. This paper discusses methods for early identification of high-PZS shale zones to possibly avoid stimulation treatments in order to pay more attention to the low-PZS zones that require stimulation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207