MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091633248 · doi:10.2118/114974-ms

Maximizing Energy at Coalface for Coalbed Methane Fracturing Operations

2008· article· en· W2091633248 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abbas W.A. Mahdi, Micheal Yu, D. Pipchuk, Craig Wasson, Jim Nguy, Nathan Lawrence Kathol

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Days · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)Encana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanyonCoalbed methanePetroleum engineeringCoalGeologyHydraulic fracturingDewateringComminutionGeotechnical engineeringCoal miningEngineeringMaterials scienceWaste managementMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nitrogen coiled tubing fracturing is the predominant method for completing and stimulating dry coalbed methane (CBM) formations, such as the Horseshoe Canyon in the Western Canadian Sedimentary basin. A typical well has an average of 20 pay zones that are stimulated individually. The coal cleats are fractured by pumping nitrogen at high rates through coiled tubing (CT) into perforations isolated by straddle assembly. Currently energy that can be delivered to the coalface of these dry CBM wells has been limited by the friction pressure through (CT). Efforts to increase the energy have involved increasing CT size and increasing surface horsepower. Economics and logistics practically limit the pipe size to 2 7/8 in. for deeper wells and 3¼ in. for shallow wells using CT fracturing technique. This paper discusses the development of a technique which initially eliminates the CT friction limits on transferring energy to coalface. A large-volume pressure pulse is released downhole during the fracturing process to create an order of magnitude change in available energy at the fracture face, compared to current dynamic fracturing processes. The additional energy is dissipated by increasing the surface cleat area exposed. The development of the technique and field tests results will be discussed. Introduction The Horseshoe canyon dry coal formations have been commercially exploited since late 2000. From the beginning it was clear the Horseshoe Canyon CBM play was a unique CBM play, it is set apart by consisting of a dry under pressured coal. The coal therefore does not require dewatering before production. The coal consists of multiple thin seams, ranging from 10 - 30 seams per well. The coal seam thickness ranges lies between 0.1 and 2.5 meters. (Fig 1 - Horseshoe Canyon CBM log) The production rates from these CBM wells dictates that a efficient drilling and completion model be adopted in order to be economic. The current model that is utilized is the wells are drilled with coiled tubing drilling rigs, cased and cemented. Wireline perforating crews are then dispatched to perforate the zones of interest in a rig less operation. The individual coal seams are then stimulated via the injection of dry nitrogen at high rates through a coiled tubing reel that is equipped with a fracturing isolation tool. The dry coal has not responded well to any other form of stimulation. The lack of success of more traditional stimulation methods is deemed to be damage to the dry under pressured coal seams.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAll DaysSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207