MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055764910 · doi:10.2118/164530-ms

Drainage Against Gravity: Factors Impacting the Load Recovery in Fractures

2013· article· en· W2055764910 on OpenAlexaff
Jaskaran Singh Parmar, Hassan Dehghanpour, Ergün Kuru

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisplacement (psychology)Hydraulic fracturingViscous fingeringFracture (geology)WettingDrainageViscosityPetroleum engineeringSurface tensionWell stimulationTight gasMaterials scienceWater injection (oil production)Water flowFluid dynamicsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyComposite materialMechanicsReservoir engineeringPorous mediumPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Horizontal wells in the tight reservoirs are stimulated using multistage hydraulic fracturing. The fracturing fluid used in this operation is generally water based. A very low percentage of fracturing water is recovered during the flowback operation. Non-recovered water can block the gas flow and damage the reservoir. The water recovery in propped fractures is controlled by microscopic displacement efficiency and fracture areal sweep efficiency. Microscopic displacement efficiency is mainly controlled by capillarity, and has been studied extensively. Areal sweep efficiency during water drainage in propped fractures is controlled by mobility ratio and displacement direction relative to gravity direction, which needs further investigation. This paper reports various fracture drainage experiments to understand the effect of gravity, surface properties, and viscosity on fracture sweep efficiency and total load recovery. A visual cell was built to model a propped fracture. Glass beads were packed in the space between two glass plates, and the pack was then saturated with the fracturing fluid. This simulates the initial conditions before opening the well for flowback. For simulating the water drainage against gravity, representing a fracture element below the horizontal well, the gas was injected at the bottom of the cell. Four sets of experiments were conducted to study the effect of injection pressure, interfacial tension, wettability, and fluid rheology on sweep efficiency and load recovery. Glass beads were chemically treated to alter their wettability from hydrophilic to hydrophobic. For each test, normalized fluid recovery was obtained by measuring the mass of produced fluid and using the material balance. The cell was kept in a dark room in front of a light box, and pictures were taken at regular time intervals. These images were later used to compare the drainage patterns. The results suggest that water recovery in an upward displacement very low mainly due to poor sweep efficiency. Increasing the injection pressure does not improve water recovery. Reducing surface tension and using treated hydrophobic sand improves the sweep efficiency and in turn the load recovery.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207