Best Practices for Multi-zone Stimulation Using Composite Bridge Plugs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Treatment isolation using composite bridge plugs (CP) has been practiced for about 18 years in North America and continues to be among the most economical ways to stimulate horizontal and multi-layer vertical wells. Despite this long experience, many end users still experience problems in these applications because of sub-optimal choices regarding product selection, run-in and removal options, and unrealistic expectations regarding plug life in downhole environments. This paper will identify best practices for using CPs, based on prior technical papers, field experience, and manufacturers’ published data. These practices maximize the chances of successfully installing and removing CPs in multi-zone treatment applications, improving the economics of oil and gas plays requiring multiple stimulation treatments per well. As multi-zone completion activity increases in regions outside of North America, treatment applications using CPs will also increase in those regions. Realizing the benefits of using CPs in emerging regions will be achieved by learning about best practices from regions with extensive experience in their use.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it