MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282324804 · doi:10.2118/179120-ms

Well Integrity for Fracturing and Re-Fracturing: What Is Needed and Why?

2016· article· en· W2282324804 on OpenAlexaff
George E. King, Randy L. Valencia

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringHydraulic fracturingIntegrity managementOil wellForensic engineeringWork (physics)Structural integrityWell stimulationGeologyEngineeringPetroleumPipeline transportStructural engineeringReservoir engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fracturing, multiple fracturing and refracturing often create peak loads for well design. The scope of this work is to identify areas of potential damage in older wells being considered for refracturing so that those wells can be flagged for further investigation and repair. Removing damaged well stock from consideration before a well integrity failure can occur protects the environment and also allows time for repairs that protect the future value of the well stock. New and older well conditions and stimulation methods are discussed with a view towards identifying peak-load factors. Laboratory work and literature study results are also cited to document the connection to previous work and relate literature findings to current stress load causes and isolation damage prevention. Well integrity investigation methods include pressure testing, cement evaluation tools (CET), cement and stimulation pump charts, downhole imaging devices (cameras, calipers, electrical logging tools), and other approaches. New well fracturing, and particularly multi-fracturing completions can produce stresses on the cement-to-pipe and cement-to-formation seals, although the damage, depending on specific conditions can be minor to moderate and changes to construction techniques can eliminate or minimize most problems. Re-fracturing of wells opens several new areas of concern including corrosion, erosion, and production related issues such as subsidence that may result in a higher risk to barrier elements. The results of the work illustrate construction methods that can produce wellbores capable of handling significant multi-fracturing stimulation. In addition, risks of re-fracturing damage on damage to older wells are rated with monitoring and remedial operations as part of the discussions. Finally, frac hits (a fracture from one well intersecting and damaging an adjacent well) will be discussed with examples of several factors that are common in frac hits.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations75
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology ConferenceSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207