MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762632555 · doi:10.2118/187245-ms

Evolving Completion Technologies Mitigate Proppant Flowback

2017· article· en· W2762632555 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis Swain, Jesse Powell, Shawn Stadnyk

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexProduction (economics)Offset (computer science)Completion (oil and gas wells)Risk analysis (engineering)Operations managementComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringBusinessEngineeringEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The concept of "cutting costs at any cost" leads to poor short-term focused decisions which can result in higher total costs in the future. In many instances, any dollars saved in the initial completion are more than offset by costs incurred later in the life of the well. One such example is the operational difficulty and costs incurred in dealing with proppant flowback after fracturing operations are completed. In many such cases, a post-fracture cleanout is required before turning the well over to production, and subsequent additional cleanouts can be required after three to six months of production. This paper will examine the application of a completion methodology which has proven to minimize the inflow of proppant during both the fracture treatment, and during subsequent production. With minimal additional costs associated with the use of the method, the savings result in a benefit to profitability and capital preservation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207