MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282910877 · doi:10.2118/179137-ms

Hydraulic Fracture Modeling Workflow and Toolkits for Well Completion Optimization in Unconventionals

2016· article· en· W2282910877 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringHydraulic fracturingCompletion (oil and gas wells)Unconventional oilTight gasWorkflowReservoir modelingGeologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringFossil fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unconventional reservoirs produce substantial quantities of oil and gas. These reservoirs are usually characterized by ultra-low matrix permeability. Most unconventional reservoirs are hydraulically fractured in order to establish more effective flow from the reservoir and fracture networks to the wellbores. The success of hydraulic fracture stimulation in horizontal wells has the potential to dramatically change the oil and gas production landscape across the globe and the impacts will endure for decades to come. For a given field development project, the economics are highly dependent completion establishing effective and retained contact with the hydrocarbon bearing rocks. Well and completion design parameters that influence the economic success of the field development include well orientation and landing zone, stage spacing and perforation cluster spacing, fluid volume, viscosity and pumping rate, and proppant volume, size and ramping schedule. Optimization of these design parameters to maximize asset economic value is key to the success of every unconventional asset. To achieve an optimal completion design for an asset, the current industry practice is to conduct a large number of field trials that require high capital investment and long cycle-time, and most importantly, significantly erode the project value. The workflow and toolkits shown in this paper offer a much cheaper and faster alternative approach in which to develop an optimal well completion design for EUR and unit development cost (UDC) improvements. It provides an integrated well placement and completion design optimization process that integrates geomechanics descriptions, formation characterizations, flow dynamics, microseismic event catalogues, hydraulic fracturing monitoring data, well completion and operational parameters in a modeling environment with optimization capability. The model is built upon a 3D geological model with multi-disciplinary inputs including formation properties, in-situ stresses, natural fracture descriptions, and well and completion parameters (i.e., well orientation, landing interval, fluid rate and volume, perforation spacing, and stage spacing). Upon calibrating with the hydraulic fracturing diagnosis data, the model provides optimized well completion design, and guidance on data acquisition and diagnostic needs to achieve EUR performance at optimized costs. Field trials based on recommendations from the approach have yielded encouraging production uplift and have led to a significant reduction in the number of trials and cost compared to the commonly used trial-and-error approach. We believe it is technically feasible to derive an optimal completion design using a subsurface based forward modeling approach which will deliver significant value to the industry.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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