MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018411334 · doi:10.2523/iptc-18142-ms

Slickwater Chemistry Concerns and Field Water Management in Tight Gas

2014· article· en· W2018411334 on OpenAlex
David Lindsay Alexander Langille, Michael Scheck, Ben Seligman

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

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduced waterHydraulic fracturingEnvironmental scienceWater treatmentPetroleum engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The method of stimulation employed at the Shell Groundbirch asset in the Montney tight gas play is the limited-entry slickwater hydraulic fracture. The original fracturing water specification was a simple filtering requirement and an allowable range of salinity. Considering the associated health, safety, security, and environment (HSSE) perspectives, costs, and perceptions with sourcing and disposing of water related to hydraulic fracturing, determining a fracturing water specification became critical. This paper will describe a concise and pragmatic approach for determining a new fracturing water specification and water handling system aimed at recycling flowback and produced water, while using as little fresh water as possible. This water specification case study is based on the industry considerations of hydraulic fracturing and water management, and their impacts on costs and the environment. This approach to determine a chemistry specification for slickwater hydraulic fracturing and handling considerations may be applied elsewhere to enable the optimization of sourcing and disposal, HSSE concerns, production impairment prevention, and cost reduction. The process of determining the water chemistry specification assessed bacteria, formation damage, scale, and friction reduction performance. After a year of consultation and experimentation, an improved, but still simple fracturing water specification was established. Chemical use includes a scale inhibitor in addition to the on-the-fly fracturing fluids of a friction reducer, a surfactant, and a biocide. Scale inhibitor usage depends on pH and iron content. Coupled with water chemistry considerations, an integrated team initiated an intrafield water handling system that first recycles flowback or produced water and uses fresh water only when brine volumes are insufficient. This paper will specifically address (1) a method to develop a water chemistry specification for slickwater fracturing, (2) a pragmatic means of forecasting water in tight gas developments, and (3) a means of integrating water chemistry and forecasting learning into application for pragmatic field development. Introduction Tight gas developments rely on hydraulic fracturing to produce gas at economically viable rates. One popular method of hydraulic fracturing is the limited-entry slickwater fracture treatment in which a number of perforation clusters are attempted to be simultaneously stimulated with a slickened water and proppant slurry in a number of stages throughout the wellbore. The implications of water in tight gas beyond hydraulic fracturing have been recognized at Shell Canada's Groundbirch development in the Montney play. Shell Canada's Groundbirch asset is located in Northeastern British Columbia, Canada, per Figure 1. The current land base consists of nearly 400 sections of Montney focused development of which about half are Shell's land held with Brion Energy, while the remainder are held jointly between Shell and other partners.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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