MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002501071 · doi:10.2118/77444-ms

Running Two BHP Gauges to Determine Fracture Growth and Entry Pressure: A Case Study in Canada

2002· article· en· W2002501071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jose Rueda, Haifeng Gu, Craig Vandenborn, Darla Graff Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture (geology)PerforationHydrostatic pressureGeologyPressure measurementGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceMechanicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hydraulic fractures are sometimes designed to start in an upper pay zone and grow into a lower pay zone(s) to avoid generation of multiple fractures during the treatment or to prevent sand production. For such treatments, there is no published methodology to confirm if the fracture actually grows into the lower pay zones. Another issue that engineers must address is that the measured pressure in the wellbore always includes the entry pressure (perforation, microannulus and/or tortuosity), complicating pressure interpretation and making fracture diagnosis difficult. This paper discusses how running two non-communicating bottomhole pressure (BHP) gauges for a fracture treatment gives reliable and useful information about height growth, and entry pressure. Moreover, the proposed configuration of BHP gauges gives a continuous, direct fracture pressure measurement without being affected by any entry pressure; i.e., the pressure immediately inside the fracture is measured. We will present a field case where such a configuration was used to confirm that the fracture originated in the upper pay zone and grew through a 7-ft thick shale to connect a lower pay zone. Two gauges were run as follows: one memory gauge below a bridge plug to monitor the lower perforated pay zone, and one surface readout gauge (real time) within the frac string to monitor the bottomhole pressure of the upper perforated zone being treated. For this case we confirmed that the fracture did indeed grow into the lower pay zone during both the minifrac and the main treatment. We were also able to measure exactly how much entry pressure was present during both the minifrac and the main treatment. In addition, conflicting pressure behaviors from the two gauges were observed during a sequence of injections and shut-ins and are explained later in the paper. The explanation leads to the conclusion that a conventional BHP measurement may yield pressure behavior that is misleading for pressure diagnostics.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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