MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035001132 · doi:10.2118/0312-0084-jpt

Factors Affecting Downhole Scale Deposition: North Dakota Bakken Formation

2012· article· en· W2035001132 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis Denney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCalcium Carbonate Crystallization and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOil shaleCarbonateDeposition (geology)Unconventional oilCompletion (oil and gas wells)AlkalinityStructural basinGeochemistryHydrology (agriculture)Mining engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeomorphologyPaleontologyGeotechnical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 140977, ’Field Study of the Physical and Chemical Factors Affecting Downhole Scale Deposition in the North Dakota Bakken Formation,’ by Lawrence M. Cenegy, SPE, Clyde A. McAfee, SPE, and Leonard J. Kalfayan, SPE, Hess Corporation, prepared for the 2011 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, Texas, 11-13 April. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Oil recovery from the North Dakota Bakken formation has increased nearly 100-fold over the last 5 years. For one North Dakota operator with 150 Bakken producing wells, 22 of the wells have experienced at least one event of severe calcium carbonate scaling in the pump and production tubing, leading to well failure. A study showed that 82% of those wells failed during early production (i.e., less than 20,000 bbl of water produced and 2 years production); after this point, failures became increasingly rare. This rate correlated with transient alkalinity spikes in the water analyses and was attributed to fracturing-fluid flowback. Simulated blending of fracturing and formation waters demonstrated that during this period, it was most important to maintain a high level of scale inhibitor. Introduction The Bakken formation is within the Williston basin in western North Dakota and northeastern Montana in the USA and in southern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba in Canada, as shown in Fig. 1. Discovered in 1953, the formation contains three key layers: an upper shale member (approximately 25 ft thick) that separates it from the Mississippian Lodgepole formation, a middle sandstone and silty-sandstone member (approximately 35 to 90 ft thick), and a lower shale member (approximately 50 ft thick) that separates it from the Devonian Three Forks formation. While the upper and lower shale members are rich in organic matter, the middle sandstone layer is most often produced economically because of its greater porosity. Bakken production occurs from approximately 8,000- to 11,000-ft vertical depth, with temperatures up to 240°F and pressures of 5,500 to 6,000 psi. The oil gravity is 39 to 46°API. Background Horizontal drilling is used to exploit reserves because the middle member is a relatively thin layer. Wells completed with 10,000-ft laterals are common. This method allows access to more oil-producing zones; however, the low permeability of the Bakken middle member requires effective hydraulic fracturing for production. Initially, the opera-tor conducted only “scour frac” operations, in which a single, high-rate fracturing treatment was pumped into the horizontal open hole without controlled placement. The result was cracking of the formation at its weakest point rather than a distribution of multiple propped fractures along the wellbore. Often, the result was excessive fracture-height growth and water incursion from other formations. Newer fracturing technology enables pinpoint multizone fracturing of the horizontal section. Pinpoint fracturing uses openhole packers and ball-actuated sliding sleeves to isolate targeted intervals. The operator applies such a system to fracture a mini-mum of 18 zones per lateral in a continuous operation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicCalcium Carbonate Crystallization and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207