Comparison of Hydraulic Fracture Fluids in Multi-stage Fracture Stimulated Horizontal Wells in the Pembina Cardium Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tight oil plays in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin have recently seen a significant increase in activity through advances in horizontal drilling and fracturing technology. The Cardium Formation in the Pembina field of Alberta, Canada is one such play, with approximately 454 new multi-stage fracture stimulated horizontal wells rig released in 2011. Within the Pembina field there are significant geological variations, which are highlighted by the range of oil production rates and profiles seen throughout the field. This paper provides a review of the Cardium Formation in the Pembina field, including comparisons of the technical and economic results of the different multi-stage fracture fluids within each specific geographical region and a comparison of the results between the geographical regions. In general, reservoir quality and oil production from the eastern region of the Pembina field is poorer than oil production from the central and western regions, and therefore the economics of costly completion techniques are unfavourable in the East. Water foam hydraulic fracture fluid yields the highest reserves and value in Central and East Pembina whereas slickwater hydraulic fracture fluid results in the highest reserves and value in West Pembina. By increasing the understanding of the different approaches that are currently being used and the results, the industry can select the appropriate technique for completing new wells in the Cardium and other similar tight oil plays world-wide.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".