Innovative borehole treatment utilising inflatable packer straddle system technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open hole fracturing and acid stimulation utilising the traditional cemented liner and hydro jet perforations or mechanical packers with ball-activated frac sleeves have been deployed successfully in the US and Canada for years. One of the primary concerns about the conventional liner methods is assurance of knowing where the fracture or acid is placed. There is no way to determine if there is adequate annular isolation to ensure the planned treatments are placed in the zone of interest. In cased holes, conventional methods to stimulate perforated zones through matrix and fracture acidising would require isolating and stimulating each zone separately in multiple trips. Otherwise, bull-heading treatments with large volumes of fluid would make it difficult to control the penetration rate into the fractures, and zones could not be selectively acidised. To eliminate these issues, an inflatable packer straddle system was run in eight tight CSG reservoirs in the Bowen Basin (Queensland). The system was run to stimulate these reservoirs in two vertical wells with cased hole perforations. It is understood that this was the first use of this process in Australian CSG wells. This paper addresses the main considerations of tool operation, case histories highlighting job procedures, and lessons learned from previous operations. It also addresses the use of other tools with the straddle system and possible modifications to the system to make it suitable for operational conditions where higher rates and abrasive sand-laden fluids are required.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".