Coping With Surface and Downhole Interference on Tightly Spaced Completions Pads in the Horn River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In gas shales the completion process can be described as changing the source rock into productive reservoir rock with the application of a fracture treatment. Successful shale gas operators have been applying technology to shift to drilling fewer wells and getting better coverage of the rock volume with fracture treatments. Overall this approach gets better results with fewer resources than the historic approaches used on tight gas plays. This tactic, however, has led to significant changes in the way work is done in the field. Now operators are consolidating operations from numerous sites into a few larger pads with many wells drilled from the same surface location. This environmentally sensitive approach has yielded far less surface disturbance but created some other consequences as well. The resulting close surface and subsurface well proximity has resulted in new safety, technical and operational challenges. A large part of the completions engineering effort is focused on solving both surface and subsurface issues related to proximity. Apache has recently completed a pad of 16 wells with 274 completed intervals in the Horn River area. In this paper both surface and subsurface interference issues will be discussed as well as the plans for coping with the interference. Examples of interference situations and recorded downhole pressure communication from the project will be discussed with a focus on how new processes and automated tools such as the newly developed surface safety protocols and a subsurface proximity calculator enhances the planning of operations and the safety of the site. Apache has developed a subsurface completions proximity calculator to enhance the ability to plan and adjust downhole operations in an environment that may change day to day or hour to hour. The tool collects all the subsurface data and instantly gives a picture of downhole interactions and supports planning to reduce risk. The avoidance of exposure of high pressure operations to other critical lower pressure operations, such as fraccing proximate to drilling or completion interventions, will be outlined.
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".