MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004019869 · doi:10.2118/140252-ms

Fracture Stimulation Treatment Best Practices in the Bakken Oil Shale

2011· article· en· W2004019869 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOil shalePetroleum engineeringAquiferWell stimulationFracture (geology)Hydraulic fracturingTight oilGeotechnical engineeringFracture treatmentPermeability (electromagnetism)Produced waterPetrologyPetroleumReservoir engineeringGroundwater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper summarizes fracture stimulation treatment best practices determined by a three-year study of production results of several thousand fracture treatments in more than 460 wells in the Bakken Shale formation in Saskatchewan, Canada. Treatment variables include: proppant type, proppant concentration, fracturing fluid formulation, treatment size, well-bore azimuth, and lateral frac density. Treatment effectiveness is based on four month cumulative production comparisons that include: oil, water, and total fluid. The Bakken is a low-permeability oil and water-producing formation at a depth of about 1500 m (4900 ft). The study area covers about 390,000 hectares (1500 mile2) in the northern region of the Williston Basin. Wells in this region require propped fracture stimulations for economic production. All wells in this study are drilled horizontally, normally completed open-hole in the Middle Bakken. Most completions consist of isolated multistage treatments. One of the significant challenges encountered during fracture treatment design is the presence of an overlaying water aquifer, known as the Lodgepole. Fracture treatments that breach the Lodgepole aquifer are considered less than optimum because of excess water production. This paper will also review design and operational considerations for the area, including treatment volumes, pump rates and fluid chemistry. Wells in the study were primarily completed with two types of water based fluids. Treatment size and treatment rates are important considerations. The requirement to limit fracture growth conflicts with the theoretical need for a large, conductive propped fracture. However, the study shows that proppant concentration and the resulting fracture conductivity impact fluid production. Lateral length, number of frac stages, and distance between stages are also addressed in the paper. Results of this study will be presented as best practices that may be used to refine completion techniques to maximize hydrocarbon production without excessive water production in this important oil-producing basin.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.219 · 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