A Direct Comparison of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry and Well Performance Between Cemented Liner and Open Hole Packer Completed Horizontal Wells in a Tight Gas Reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Glauconitic formation is a Cretaceous age sandstone reservoir located across a large area of central Alberta, Canada. Discovered in the late 1970’s, hydraulically fractured vertical wells could produce commercial volumes of natural gas from some of the higher permeability conventional sands. However, wide spread development of the majority of the tight gas sands was not economic with vertical wells. With the introduction of multiple fractured horizontal well (MFHW) technology in recent years, and much better definition of the geology, a large unconventional resource play has developed in the Glauconitic, which could contain in excess of 5 tcf of gas in place plus associated natural gas liquids (Scotia Capital, 2009). A pilot project was designed to test the completion effectiveness between a cased and cemented liner and an open hole packer system in this tight gas reservoir. Two vertical microseismic observation wells were located in close proximity to two proposed horizontal wellbores, giving ideal conditions to test how the hydraulic fractures would grow and the ultimate fracture geometry, from two different completion methods. In this paper we will present the microseismic results of the pilot project, as well as the early production history comparison between the two wells, and the hydraulic fracture effectiveness from a reservoir engineering aspect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".