Adding Value to the Kerrobert, Viking Oil Formation via Emerging Completion Methodologies of Horizontal Multi-Stage Wells – A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Horizontal multistage fracture stimulation techniques have strategically advanced the completion and stimulation development in the Viking formation. Conventional Viking plays were vertically drilled, produced and thought to be depleted, but are now resurfacing with new opportunities. The combination of being able to reach further with wellbore lengths and increase stimulation intensity has contributed to the viability of unconventional resources. As a direct result, various stimulation technologies have emerged and evolved, such as coiled tubing straddle systems, ball drop systems, and sliding sleeves with a resettable frac-isolation tool. These completion technologies have revived and renewed interest in challenging plays and have made it possible to economically stimulate portions of the reservoir that were previously bypassed. Implementing multistage technologies in the Halkirk, Provost and Dodsland fields have created positive and noticeable production results. Operators have begun to explore and revisit areas that may have been overlooked or less obvious. With improvements in technology and techniques for horizontal multistage stimulation treatments, areas like Prairiedale, Kerrobert, Lucky Hills, Plato and Forgan are capturing attention. This case study seeks to investigate and discuss stimulation treatments, technology, and completion efficiency, which includes a case history describing how an operator completed in excess of 100 wells in the Kerrobert Viking play. It is located in southwest Saskatchewan, Canada, and lies below the Base of Fish Scales and above the Joli Fou. It will highlight key foreseen and unexpected challenges that arose in this play. Despite the challenging average 6 m pay thickness and interbedded layers of sandstone, siltstone and shale, production continues to proliferate within the Kerrobert Viking pool. Contributions of strategic horizontal drilling and multistage stimulations have improved efficiencies and reduced completion cycle time. This play has relatively low completion costs, is predictable, and therefore demonstrates repeatable economic results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".