MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077641561 · doi:10.2118/160160-ms

Production Array Logs in Bakken Horizontal Shale Play Reveal Unique Performance Based on Completion Technique

2012· article· en· W2077641561 on OpenAlexaff
R Boyer, Clyde Findlay, FNU Suparman, Jaja Sudija, Robert Reyes

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersTexas A and M UniversityPurdue UniversityConocoPhillips
KeywordsCompletion (oil and gas wells)Petroleum engineeringFracture (geology)Oil shaleGeologyBoreholeDrillingPerforationDirectional drillingDrilling fluidWell loggingMining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract ConocoPhillips drilled and completed three horizontal wells in the Bakken Shale, North Dakota in 2010; these wells contained between 33 and 40 stages. The lateral of each well consisted of a hybrid design using sliding sleeves in the toe- most half of the well and plugs/perforations for the heel-most half. Multiple completion techniques were pumped in an alternating pattern throughout the plug and perforation section of each well, and production array logs were deployed on coiled tubing in an attempt to determine fracture design best practices. As one of the key parameters to horizontal well performance in the shale plays, fracture performance evaluation becomes the main objective. The flow contribution from each fracture stage was first determined from array production log interpretations in terms of the in-situ productivity index, which became the basis for fracture stage performance analysis. This paper also includes a discussion of the challenges associated with understanding the multiphase fluid flow behavior in horizontal wells. The subsequent analysis of fracture performance was performed to relate the in-situ productivity index with other well parameters, such as well trajectory, fracture method, fluid and reservoir information around the well and the mud log information during drilling. Oil, gas, and water rates were generated for each stage and correlated to completion technique. The final analysis was aimed to answer some of the questions about how certain fracture stages performed better in comparison to others. This analysis includes identifying parameters in favor of increasing fracture performance and defining the steps needed to deal with the challenges related to the geological nature of the field. The information from this integrated evaluation result was then used to define a better strategy to improve the well performance in the future drilling campaign and to optimize the commercial value of the field.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207