Stimulation Techniques for Low-Permeability Reservoirs with Horizontal Completions that Do Not Have Cemented Casing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Existing literature offers numerous success stories for stimulating cased/cemented horizontal completions in low-permeability reservoirs.1–8 However, operators who are faced with limited producing potential need to reduce well costs. Completing the horizontal section openhole or with a noncemented liner is attractive. In low-permeability reservoirs, production from such completions has often been below expectations, and sometimes even commercially unfeasible. This is especially true when we consider only completions in reservoirs other than fractured chalks. To achieve proper stimulation with a technique such as fracture acidizing or hydraulic fracturing with proppants, operators must incorporate an economic and effective method for controlling the fluid or proppant placement. Currently, few well-proven technologies exist for controlling fracture placement in noncemented wellbores. In some cases, high risk or very high cost is associated with these technologies, depending on reservoir conditions or the potential for production improvement. This paper examines several approaches that have been used to solve these problems, and presents some of the reasons for their mechanical and/or economical success or failure. Generally, the successful use of either conventional fracturingtreatments or waterfracs (with very little or no proppant) will require some method of controlling fracture placement along the horizontal for significant production improvement. Controlling fracture placement is usually also required for effective fracture-acidizing of carbonate formations. Case histories from Canada and west Texas are included, and other examples within the literature are cited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".