MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068715618 · doi:10.2118/75522-ms

Successful Acid Treatments in Horizontal Openholes using Dynamic Diversion and Instant Response Downhole Mixing—An In-Depth Postjob Evaluation

2002· article· en· W2068715618 on OpenAlexaff
Jim B. Surjaatmadja, B. W. McDaniel, A. Cheng, Keith Rispler, M. Rees, Abe Khallad

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Gas Technology Symposium · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoiled tubingAnnulus (botany)WellboreMixing (physics)Well stimulationPetroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Fracture (geology)GeologyHydraulic fracturingFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialPetroleumReservoir engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper discusses a relatively new acid-stimulation process that uses dynamic fluid energy to divert flow into a specific fracture point in the well that can initiate and accurately place a hydraulic fracture. These acid-stimulation methods often use two independent fluid streams: the acid phase down the treating string and other liquids or gases down the annulus. The annular fluid may simply serve as a wellbore pressurizing component, or with this process, two different fluids can be mixed downhole with high energy to form a homogenous mixture. Using variations of this process, treatments were performed in four openhole, horizontal wells in the same formation. The first well was acid-fractured with coiled tubing to place many small fractures along the open hole. The second well was acidfractured with coiled tubing, but downhole mixing concepts were also used to provide in-situ generation of CO2 foam where fewer, but larger, fractures were placed in this well. The third and fourth wells were treated with acid using blasting-type rotating or non-rotating jetting tools while mixing the acid with CO2 downhole. Numerous small, near-wellbore fractures were the expected result in these two wells. Experimental laboratory investigation of the physical mechanisms that contributed to these successful stimulations was considered important. Large-scale laboratory tests were performed to more closely examine the physical rock response to the jetting mechanism and conditions. The findings of these tests are presented in this paper.

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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Gas Technology SymposiumSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207