MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055251878 · doi:10.2118/136038-ms

First Successful Selective Tight Gas Reservoir Completion and Fracture Stimulation in Sarah Formation, Rub Al-Khali Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia

2010· article· en· W2055251878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raid Bukhamseen, Ayrat Khakimov, Leopoldo Sierra, Dustin Young, Mark Stephen Machala

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTight gasDrillingQuarter (Canadian coin)Completion (oil and gas wells)Petroleum engineeringGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Fracture (geology)EngineeringHydraulic fracturingPaleontologyMechanical engineeringArchaeologyChemistryHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lukoil Saudi Arabia started a tight gas exploration campaign in the Rub Al-Khali Empty Quarter in 2006 and nine wildcat exploration wells have been drilled and evaluated. These prospective tight gas discoveries in the Empty Quarter have occurred in High Pressure and High Temperature (HPHT) horizons at depths between 12,000 and 20,000 feet, where the stress and temperature are extremely high in addition to micro-Darcy levels of reservoir permeability. This has made the exploration activity more challenging. To overcome the extreme challenges and to help assure the success of the exploration activity, a new drilling, completion, and fracturing strategy was implemented in one of the most recent wells. The synergy of the new strategy steps resulted in the first successful discovery in the Sarah formation. This paper presents the open hole compartmentalized completion steps, as well as the selective fracture stimulation strategy and challenges that have lead to the first successful tight gas discovery in the Sarah formation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207