Utilizing Oil Soluble Tracers to Understand Stimulation Efficiency Along the Lateral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chemical water soluble tracers ("WSTs") have been routinely used in hydraulic fracture stimulations in attempts to verify and quantify load recovery from multi-stage stimulations. Load recovery is often interpolated with production data by assuming percent chemical recovered for a given stage directly correlates to that stage's production contribution. This assumption is often verified by a running production logging tools. New solid chemical oil soluble tracers ("OSTs") can now be utilized as a direct indicator of oil flow and production from deep in an individual stages’ fracture. Qualitative analysis gives an early "yes" or "no" to oil flow from each stage, while quantitative analysis may be achieved using relative concentrations of OSTs recovered, and reservoir and flow assumed conditions. OSTs may be used in conjunction with water soluble chemical tracers, or as a stand-alone tracer to determine oil flow from individual stages. The purpose of this paper is to introduce utilizing solid particulate OSTs as a viable methodology to understand individual fracture stage oil contribution in horizontal wells. The results presented in this paper were derived from a three well pilot project performed in the Lower Marmaton formation in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. An investigation of hydraulic fracture stimulation efficiency was undertaken to determine if individual stimulation stages landed in either 100%, or only a portion of the pay sand, were contributing to the well's oil production. If so, to what extent? The reservoir pay thickness, along with the presence of second sand, influenced wellbore placement in that the drill bit can weave between the sands and the bounding shale layers. Also investigated was the magnitude the stimulation job had on offset producing wells. This was done by collecting and analyzing offset well production for the newly injected WSTs and OSTs. Preliminary results indicate offset communication between certain wells did occur, and the zones experiencing communication appear to have reduced contribution in the subject well's production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".