MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088258627 · doi:10.2118/0313-0096-jpt

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do: Creating Hydraulic-Fracture Complexity in the Bakken

2013· article· en· W2088258627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis Denney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinOil shaleDrillingUnconventional oilAnticlineHydraulic fracturingMining engineeringTight oilCratonPaleontologyEngineeringTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 163827, ’Breaking Up Is Hard To Do: Creating Hydraulic-Fracture Complexity in the Bakken Central Basin,’ by C. Mark Pearson, SPE, Larry Griffin, SPE, and Chris Wright, Liberty Resources, and Leen Weijers, SPE, Liberty Oilfield Services, prepared for the 2013 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 4-6 February. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Drilling the Bakken in North Dakota has increased dramatically over the past several years as operators sought to hold acreage and create value with the drill bit. Much of this activity has been in the central-basin portion of the Williston basin where wells drilled before 2008 were uneconomic. Advances in completion technology caused a fundamental shift in economics, and the whole central-basin area, greater than 2,500 sq miles, has approximately 100 rigs drilling. The greatest change in completion design was incorporating high-intensity multistage fracturing. The Bakken completion design is different from other shale-gas developments, with the widespread use of uncemented liners with external packers in the openhole lateral to create the multistage zonal isolation. Introduction The Bakken formation (highlighted in red in Fig. 1) is part of the Williston basin, which spans southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada into North Dakota and Montana in the United States. The basin was formed as a subtle down- warping between the Superior craton to the northeast and the Wyoming craton to the southwest. The Williston basin is a gently dipping basin with very little structural deformation, except for a few structural features including the Nesson anticline and the Cedar Creek anticline, shown in Fig. 1. The Upper and Lower Bakken shales are prolific source rocks for the petroleum system. The middle member consists of five to seven distinct lithofacies that range from silty sandstone on the east flank of the basin to silty dolomite on the west flank. Porosities in the middle member range from 4 to 10%, and permeabilities generally are less than 0.1 md. Development History The first Bakken-formation well came on production in 1953, 2 years after first oil production in North Dakota. Over the next 15 years, a total of 42 vertical wells were completed in the Middle Bakken or Three Forks formations. Commercial production required the existence of natural fractures associated with the uplift and could be correlated to the second- derivative curvature in the formation.

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 score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207