CO2 Energized Hydrocarbon Fracturing Fluid: History & Field Application in Tight Gas Wells in the Rock Creek Gas Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gelled hydrocarbon has been used as a fracturing fluid from the early days of fracturing. Over the years, its use has diminished in the U.S. However, its use internationally continues to the present day in Canada, South America, Russia and East Asia. The paper will discuss the use of gelled oil fluids in Canada, particularly in low pressure tight gas wells, where the use of CO2-energized gelled hydrocarbon fluids has been very successful. The chemistry of these fluids and their application is discussed. The energized fluids have been used in a variety of formations and in wells of permeabilities from 0.1 mD to 10 Darcies, depths in excess of 3000 m and BHT from 10 to 110°C. Initial and longer-term production data from wells fractured with the energized fluid will be compared to wells fractured with conventional gelled hydrocarbon fluids to show the effectiveness of the system in tight gas applications. The case study will include gas wells fractured and producing from the Rock Creek formation east of Edson, Alberta, Canada from 47-10W5 to 56-15W5 in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Observations on proppant type and proppant amount are made in addition to comments on the fracturing fluid selection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".