Revitalization of a 75-Year-Old Multi-Layered Permian Basin Field Results in 10-Fold Increase in Primary Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Permian Basin in West Texas contains one of the thickest deposits of Permian rocks found anywhere in the world. The Embar-B lease located in southern Andrews County on the Central Basin Platform (a regional structural high in the Permian Basin) has been producing from the Leonardian Clearfork formation for over 70 years. The Clearfork formation is primarily a subtidal and intertidal carbonate rock characterized as moderate quality reservoir. Most Permian Basin fields have multiple stacked reservoirs with varying degrees of reservoir quality and there is typically a need in these maturing fields to increase reservoir contact. In 2009, a drilling campaign was launched in Embar-B with a focus on expanding the completion interval to include what was previously considered marginal pay in the deeper Wichita Albany formation. The Wichita Albany, also Leonardian in age, is composed mostly of marginal quality tidal flat rocks and is characterized by high fracture gradients and low permeability. These characteristics required an advancement in completion practices to achieve a successful stimulation. The combination of improved completions practices and an expanded target interval resulted in production double that of previous wells. This success has driven a need for an innovative development strategy and continued optimization of completion practices. Geomodeling, volumetrics, reservoir simulation, seismic attribute analysis and oil fingerprinting were all used for reservoir characterization and to determine an allocation method for commingled wells. This lead to the identification of several Clearfork/Wichita Albany locations with significant reserves potential. Re-evaluation of the completion strategy using a multidisciplinary approach indicated the need to reduce the number of perforation clusters, add a diversion mechanism, and develop multiple hydraulic fracturing designs based on reservoir quality and presence of natural fractures. Results from recent drilling programs have exceeded expectations bringing lease production up from 200 BOEPD in 2009 to a peak rate of 3153 BOEPD in 2015.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".