MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009510145 · doi:10.2118/0612-0077-jpt

Targeted Fracturing Using Coiled-Tubing-Enabled Fracture Sleeves

2012· article· en· W2009510145 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoiled tubingHydraulic fracturingDowntimeCompletion (oil and gas wells)Petroleum engineeringWorkoverCasingGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Editorial Manager Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 154391, ’Reducing Operational Time, Fluid Usage, Hydraulic Horsepower, Risk, and Downtime: Targeted Fracs Using CT-Enabled Frac Sleeves,’ by Luis Castro, SPE, Thomas Watkins, SPE, Brian Bedore, SPE, and Robert Holt, Baker Hughes, and Greg Manuel, Pioneer Natural Resources, prepared for the 2012 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 27-28 March. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Unconventional reservoirs are an increasingly important part of the hydrocarbon production pool in North America. Because reservoir conditions typically require hydraulic fracturing for economical production, a significant amount of resources are focused on making the fracturing process faster and more efficient and on lowering its environmental impact. A novel technique to create targeted annular hydraulic fractures rapidly involves deploying an activation tool on coiled tubing (CT) to open fracture sleeves in a horizontal well. The new technology uses fracture sleeves that are activated swiftly using a CT bottomhole assembly (BHA). The system, already used in thousands of fracturing stages in Canada, speeds up the completion process, uses less fluid, minimizes risks, and reduces overall downtime. Introduction Unconventional reservoirs in the United States are commonly stimulated using what is known as the “plug-and-perf ” (P&P) method. This method requires a tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) device run, typically on CT, for the first stage to open a conduit for pumping down the casing. The first stage of the fracturing treatment is then pumped down through the open perforations. Once completed, a composite plug and perforating guns are run on wireline to isolate the first fracture stage and to perforate intervals in the second stage (each interval is commonly referred to as a “cluster”). Running wireline in horizontal wells requires pumping fluid from surface to push the wireline BHA through the wellbore like a piston. After retrieving the wireline from the well, the subsequent fracture treatment is pumped. This process is repeated until all stages are completed. After the fracture spread moves off of the location, a CT unit is commonly brought in to mill the composite plugs and allow the well to produce. Although this method is the one most commonly used, it has drawbacks. P&P fracs are time consuming: They require numerous days on location to prepare the well (i.e., running the TCP device, known as a toe-shoot), complete all the stages designed for the fracturing treatment, and finally mill the plugs.

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 score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207