MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586901768 · doi:10.2118/185031-ms

Localized Reservoir Characterization Model for Hydraulic Fracturing Design in Tight Reservoirs

2017· article· en· W2586901768 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Unconventional Resources Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsGeologyHydraulic fracturingTight oilOil shalePetroleum engineeringTight gasPermeability (electromagnetism)DrillingReservoir modelingPetrologyPetroleum reservoirShale gasCarbonateReservoir simulationMining engineeringPaleontologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tight reservoirs with low and ultralow permeability must be successfully stimulated to produce at economic oil or gas rates. For this reason, costs of drilling and completing wells are very high in tight reservoirs. In order to reduce these costs, operators have often tried to replicate the same or similar hydraulic fracturing designs that have been successfully used in previous wells in the same geological area. This strategy sometimes results in unexpected surprises and operational challenges leading to unsuccessful stimulations and poor production performance. The major reason behind these challenges is that tight reservoirs exhibit a localized behavior with changes in reservoir quality such as mineralogy, hydrocarbon content, and thickness across the same reservoir. In order to study the localized behavior of tight reservoirs; three wells that penetrated the Eaglebine formation in Texas were evaluated. The Eaglebine formation contains both the Eagle Ford and the Woodbine reservoirs. The combined Eagle Ford and Woodbine (Eaglebine) reservoir can sometimes exceed 1,000 feet in thickness. These reservoirs are present at depths between 6,500 and 15,000 feet in East Texas. In some areas, the Eaglebine contains a large percentage of silica-rich sands interbedded in organic rich shale and carbonate layers. This paper investigates the reasons as to why same hydraulic fracturing techniques should not be applied necessarily for every well in the same geological area. Furthermore, it demonstrates how we can exploit the localized reservoir behavior to plan for future wells despite limited data availability. Data from mud logs, well logs, and cores, including mineralogy and geomechanical data are integrated to build the localized reservoir characterization model that can be used to plan how each individual well should be hydraulically fractured. The model provides information such as location of organic-rich zones, brittle zones, and ductile zones in a geological area. Lastly, it recommends the type of fracture fluid that can yield a successful stimulation operation in ductile or brittle zones.

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)0.001
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 score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.222 · 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