MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2001076660 · doi:10.2118/173678-ms

Cost Effective Solutions to Achieve Injection Post Toe Valve Failure

2015· article· en· W2001076660 on OpenAlexaff
Cody Trebing, Jeff Whitworth, Alex Beszterda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkoverWirelineCoiled tubingSpark plugHemostatEngineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Petroleum engineeringMechanical engineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of pressure-activated toe valves in a completion string is yet another innovative approach to completing a horizontal well. This technology eliminates the need for perforating guns prior to a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing (frac) operation. Subsequently, the operator can greatly reduce costs when the need for coiled tubing (CT), wireline (WL), or workover rig (WOR) is no longer needed on location to convey perforating guns. However, when injection rate through the toe valve is not adequate for wireline pump-down operations, or the toe valve fails to open at all, the operator must revert back to conventional methods of perforating in order to achieve injection into the well and begin the frac operation. These failures immediately negate any of the cost savings the toe valves were designed to provide. This paper will review cost effective solutions, through the use of abrasive perforating, to quickly and efficiently perforate the toe stage and minimize non-productive time (NPT). Most often, adequate pump-down rate is not achieved through the toe valve when debris or cement is lying across the tool, preventing it from opening or plugging off the ports. Prior to perforating, a motor and bit run is common to verify that the well is clean down to plug back total depth (PBTD). This requires a minimum of two round trips with coiled tubing or a workover rig. Two different methods of abrasive perforating have been used to benefit both conventional plug and perforate and frac sleeve completions (sometimes referred to as “baffles”). Several case histories will be presented to explain how a single trip in hole, utilizing a motor BHA and abrasive perforator in tandem to clean and perforate the toe stage, can minimize costs compared to several round trips using the conventional method with perforating guns. Additionally, we will explore an innovative approach to abrasively perforate the toe stage through frac sleeves where minimal ID's pose a problem with conventional methods of perforating. Abrasive perforating technology, in conjunction with other innovative tools, adds a wide range of flexibility for today's complex horizontal wells. Utilizing this technology, problems such as toe valve failures can be addressed in a safe and cost effective manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→