MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131549855 · doi:10.2118/136757-pa

Restimulation of Unconventional Reservoirs: When Are Refracs Beneficial?

2011· article· en· W2131549855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. C. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture (geology)Petroleum engineeringGeologyHydraulic fracturingGeotechnical engineeringEmbedmentPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Restimulation treatments have been attempted in a wide variety of reservoirs, and more than 140 papers have been published documenting the success and failure of these efforts. A database of these published examples has been compiled and analyzed to identify the mechanisms responsible for production improvement following restimulation with propped fractures (refracs). A portion of this database was recently published (Vincent 2010), and specific field examples were highlighted to demonstrate that refrac treatments can improve production by numerous mechanisms, including Enlarged fracture geometry Improved pay coverage through increased fracture height in vertical wells Greater lateral coverage in horizontal wells or initiation of more transverse fractures Increased fracture conductivity compared with initial frac Restoration of fracture-conductivity loss caused by embedment, cyclic stress, proppant degradation, gel damage, scale, asphaltene precipitation, fines plugging, and other factors Increased conductivity in previously unpropped or inadequately propped portions of fracture Use of more-suitable fracturing fluids Reorientation caused by stress-field alterations, leading to contact of "new" rock This paper will briefly review restimulation attempts in six Canadian reservoirs of interest to the local audience, and will then present a more-detailed review of restimulation of horizontal wells in the unconventional Bakken oil formation. In addition to a summary of published results, this paper will introduce a significant amount of previously unpublished data regarding refrac treatments of horizontal laterals completed in the Middle Bakken. This study will identify several additional concerns and opportunities with restimulating horizontal wellbores that were not previously identified in literature reviews. This organized summary of field results and references will provide significant value to readers evaluating or designing restimulation treatments.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations71
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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