Comparative Study of Multistage Cemented Liner and Openhole System Completion Technologies in the Montney Resource Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Montney Formation Resource Play, which straddles the border between the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, is considered by many to be one of the largest natural gas resource plays in North America. Original gas-in-place estimates for the Montney range from a minimum of 80 tcf to as high as 700 tcf. Despite horizontal, multistage stimulation being common practice to effectively exploit tight gas sand and shale reservoirs, determination of the optimal methodology and identification of the parameters that affect optimization have yet to be fully understood. This paper compares two different multistage hydraulic fracturing technologies applied in the Lower Montney Formation: cemented liner and openhole multistage system (OHMS) completions. In-depth analysis was performed on field data from 15 wells divided into two separate geographical areas within the same field. Comparisons included production analysis, lateral lengths, number of stages, stage spacing, proppant volumes, and pump rates. Additionally, operational time and cost comparisons on a per well and per stage basis for both technologies were determined. Based upon the field data analyzed, the application of OHMS completion technology is appropriate for the Lower Montney in the region of the play studied. Application of this technology for the wells selected in the two study areas resulted in both greater initial production rates and overall cumulative production than cemented liner completed wells. Additionally, less time was required to perform the fracture stimulation job when using OHMS technology as compared to cemented liners. Both the average total cost of completion and average cost per stage in conducting cemented liner jobs was higher than employing OHMS completions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".