Solid Paraffin Inhibitors Pumped in Hydraulic Fractures Increase Oil Recovery in Viking Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Viking formation in southern Saskatchewan Canada represents an active area where steep production declines in the first year of production are common and are often attributed to wellbore or near-wellbore precipitation of paraffin. Excessive decline rates within the first year on production have been observed. A producer was experiencing paraffin deposition in the wellbore and suspected it to be the reason for production declines. Conventional treatments targeted at wellbore deposition were carried out with little effect on production rates. In an effort to improve production rates horizontal treatments were attempted. These treatments resulted in brief increases in production (up to 6 weeks). Horizontal treatment success led to investigation into other treatment options. Precipitation in the formation may contribute to reduced conductivity and, therefore, lower oil production rates. Solid paraffin inhibitors delivered via hydraulic fracturing offered the best potential for success in new wells. The chemical additive treatment was designed through product selection testing using cold finger deposition tests, compatibility testing with the hydraulic fracturing fluid system, and proppant crush prediction models. A baseline of the untreated oil characteristics was determined using offset wells. Pour point, carbon number distribution and wax percentage were analyzed in offset untreated wells and each treated well. Production trends were used to track the performance of the treatments. The solid inhibitor application effectively prevented conductivity restrictions due to paraffin precipitation issues in the proppant pack. Placement of solid paraffin inhibitors into the Viking formation with the proppant during hydraulic fracturing increased cumulative production by approximately forty percent in the first 350 days on production and reduced decline rates. Comparing 150 untreated wells with the 90 wells treated with the solid paraffin inhibitor in 2012 has increased revenue by about 15.8 million USD over the 350-day period. Wells drilled in the same area, with similar frac treatments, depths, horizontal lengths and stages were compared.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".