MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782952311 · doi:10.2118/189841-ms

Proppant Transport by a High Viscosity Friction Reducer

2018· article· en· W2782952311 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 and Exhibition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsNalco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuarRheologyViscosityGuar gumShear thinningMaterials scienceApparent viscosityReducerGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyChemistryMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Because of potential reduced cost and improved retained conductivity, high viscosity friction reducers (HVFRs) are becoming increasingly popular in hydraulic fracturing stages where linear or crosslinked guar gels are traditionally used. However, concerns remain regarding the proppant transport capability of HVFRs relative to that of traditional linear gels. To address these concerns, the proppant transport capability of a polyacrylamide-based HVFR is compared with that of linear guar at cost-parity concentrations. Correlation between the proppant transport capability and rheological properties of the fluids, including viscosity and elasticity, is also discussed. A slot flow device was used to visualize the proppant transport performance of each fluid. The fluid concentrations ranged from 2.25 to 4.5 gpt (gallons per thousand gallons) for the HVFRs and 15# to 30# (pounds per thousand gallons) for guar, which were matched to achieve cost-parity between the two classes of fluids. The proppants used were 30/50, 20/40, and 12/20 mesh sand at 2 ppg (pounds per gallon) loading. Comprehensive rheological properties of the carrier fluids were characterized under steady-state and oscillatory shear and correlated with the observed proppant transport behavior. At least two sand transport mechanisms were observable in the slot flow tests. Small sand particles remained suspended in the fluid and were transported by convection. Large sand particles settled quickly, but top layers of the settled particles crept forward at a slower speed. The HVFR showed significantly better sand transport efficiency than guar at cost-parity concentrations despite the fact that the HVFR had a lower viscosity at high shear rates. The improved sand transport performance may be attributed to two factors: first, sand particles were suspended for a longer time in the HVFR because of its elevated viscosity at lower shear rates in the center of the slot; second, the HVFR's increased elasticity in the high shear regime near the wall further enhanced sand suspension by providing an elastic lifting force to hinder sand settling. The elastic effect on sand settling is estimated to be much larger than the viscous effect for the HVFR investigated herein but is neglibile in guar. Field results validated the capability of the HVFR to carry proppants, including 20/40 mesh coarse sand, in situations where traditional slickwater FRs and linear guar gel failed. This study demonstrated that the HVFR has superior proppant transport capability, relative to guar, at cost-parity concentrations despite having lower viscosity at high shear rates. The results indicate that the proppant transport performance of fracturing fluids correlates better with their elasticity and low shear viscosity than the high shear viscosity. Additionally, the findings provide much needed proppant transport data for field engineers to make rational choices for the selection of fracturing fluids.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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