MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2029905630 · doi:10.15530/urtec-2014-1886725

A CFD Validation of Historical Production Studies Comparing Plug-and-Perf to Openhole Sleeve Completion Methods in Horizontal Multi-Stage Fractured Wells

2014· article· en· W2029905630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Viriyah Theppornprapakorn, Shari Dunn‐Norman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompletion (oil and gas wells)Computational fluid dynamicsStage (stratigraphy)Spark plugPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceMarine engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringGeologyAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural gas production from unconventional gas reservoirs in North America rely on the technologies of horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. The cased and cemented completion technique, Plug-and-perf (P-n-P), has been utilized as a traditional completion in horizontal wells for many years. However, the openhole completion technique, Open Hole Sleeve Multi-stage System (OHMS), has gained favor in the past decade, because of its cost and time efficiencies. Production comparisons between these two completion methods remain a controversial subject, with ongoing debate regarding which method yields more gas production. Historical studies compare production indicators, typically from a limited set of sample wells. These historical studies indicate either insignificant differences between the two completion methods, or that OHMS systems significantly outperform P-n-P. However, these historical studies are limited in a number of ways. A computational fluid dynamics model (CFD) has been developed to compare P-n-P completions with OHMS for horizontal, multi-stage fractured wells. The numerical model uses a 6-inch borehole draining a tight gas reservoir (0.01 mD), under steady state flow with no formation damage. The P-n-P completion assumes 0.22 in., 180 o phased perforations connecting to a planar fracture penetrating the height of the reservoir. The OHMS completion assumes sandface flow, and no orifice effect from the sleeve openings. Both completions assume the planar fracture intersects at the center of the reservoir model. The results of the CFD analyses compare the productivity index ratio (J/Jo) verses dimensionless fracture conductivity (Cfd) for each completion over a range of fracture conductivity (kfw) obtained from commercial proppant data. Parametric studies were performed varying propped fracture width, fracture half-length and vertical to horizontal permeability ratio (kv/kh), to investigate the effects of these parameters on the completion comparison. This paper presents the results of the numerical modeling and compares productivity index results to historical, production-based studies of the P-n-P and OHMS completions in horizontal, multi-stage fractured wells. This work verifies a slight production advantage in OHMS systems versus P-n-P completions used in horizontal wells today. The work is significant because few, if any, numerical models have been developed to study and compare performance of these completions. Introduction Industry has been able to economically develop the unconventional shale gas and tight gas reservoirs within United States and Canada in the past decade. The technologies of horizontal drilling with the continuous advancements in the multi-zone completion placing the multiple fractures along the wellbore have proven to be the significant keys to URTeC 2014 Page 1469

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→