Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last several years open hole, multi-stage fracturing systems (OHMS) have proven to be an effective and efficient completion technology in many unconventional reservoirs. To date, OHMS completion technology has been limited to a maximum differential pressure of 68.9 MPa (10,000 psi) while performing the fracture stimulation treatment. As the industry targets deeper formations while drilling longer horizontal laterals, some wells now require treatment pressures higher than 68.9 MPa (10,000 psi) to perform the desired stimulation and realize the added production potential OHMS technology offers. As a result, there is a need for OHMS completion tools capable of handling very high pressure/high temperature (HPHT) conditions. The challenge in creating HPHT completion tools is in the material requirements. Considerations must be made regarding how to ensure integrity of the seal between the liner and the annulus, the gripping capability of the packer elements, and the ability of the materials to withstand the downhole conditions. HPHT OHMS tools were designed and manufactured with improved metal alloy and premium seal technology. The basic design and function of this HPHT system is the same as the standard OHMS; therefore, the HPHT tools build on the field-proven technology. Case study wells are presented in a recently developed, deep shale gas formation just east of the Rocky Mountains with highly overpressured downhole conditions. This, combined with a high fracture gradient, resulted in sub-optimal fracture initiation with the standard OHMS. By employing the HPHT OHMS, higher treating pressures were achieved with successful treatment results. Using this technology, several additional wells have been completed in the same geographical field and implemented in other HPHT applications. Introduction Over the last five years (2007 - 2011), more than 5,000 horizontal wellbores have been completed using OHMS in unconventional shales, tight sandstones and tight carbonate reservoirs in Western Canada. In addition to providing time and cost reductions, OHMS completions have realized production benefits compared to conventional completion methods because they allow contribution from natural fractures and the open hole lateral (Snyder and Seale, 2011; Edwards et al., 2010; Houston et al., 2010; Lohoefer et al., 2010; Lohoefer et al., 2010b; Samuelson et al., 2008). OHMS fracturing method. With the advancement of horizontal drilling and completion practices in recent years, many wells are now drilled horizontally with the intention to fracture stimulate multiple intervals. A very common technique has been to complete the well with a multi-stage fracturing system that is installed on a liner in the open hole without cementing the horizontal (Seale et al., 2006; Seale, 2007) (Fig. 1).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".