MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039689579 · doi:10.2118/161355-ms

Proppant Selection for Hydraulic Fracture Production Optimization in Shale Plays

2012· article· en· W2039689579 on OpenAlex
Mei Yang, Michael J. Economides

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Eastern Regional Meeting · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingOil shaleGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Geotechnical engineeringFracture (geology)Petroleum engineeringIsotropyStiffnessAnisotropyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Proppants are essential to the success of most hydraulic fractures and often account for the overwhelming cost of the treatment. Both the mass of proppant and the selection of the right type of proppant are important elements in gaining the highest Net Present Value (NPV). It has been generally believed that in the lower closure stress environment (below 6,000 psi, i.e., shallow reservoirs), natural sands such as Brady and Ottawa are appropriate as proppants and, for the same mesh size, they provide essentially the same permeability. A commonly accepted notion is that manmade proppants (such as ceramics) should be applied at higher closure stress environments, invariably, deeper reservoirs. The characteristics of most shale plays are very different, mainly as regards to the rock stiffness, exemplified by the Young’s Modulus, stress anisotropy/isotropy and the existence of natural fracture network. Fracture strategies in shale formations are very different. This study presents fracture designs based on three types of proppants for shale formations: Brady sand, Ottawa sand and ceramic. Permeability tests and crush tests under certain pressure range are done to determine experimentally the dimensioned fracture conductivity. A fracture optimization p-3D model is used to maximize well performance by optimizing fracture geometry, including fracture half length, width and height. Reduced proppant pack permeability is compensated by larger width. Non-Darcy effects in the fracture are also considered for gas reservoirs. Post-treatment well performance is then estimated, using the optimized well geometry, leading to cumulative production over the well life. NPV analysis is employed as the criterion to select the best proppant for the job. Finally, the completion and production data from example wells will be analyzed for comparison purpose. In this work, we try to correct the prejudice that natural sand proppants cannot be applied to deeper reservoirs by showing NPV study results that are superior to those of manmade proppants. Keeping stimulation costs down, natural sands proppants have a much larger range of applicability than previously thought.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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