MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794717531 · doi:10.2118/190284-ms

An Investigation on the Feasibility of Combined Refracturing of Horizontal Wells and Huff and Puff Gas Injection for Improving Oil Recovery from Shale Petroleum Reservoirs

2018· article· en· W2794717531 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 Improved Oil Recovery Conference · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil shaleShale gasPetroleumGeologyWellboreHydraulic fracturing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Huff and Puff gas injection through horizontal wells in shale petroleum reservoirs is moving cautiously from being a promising theoretical possibility, to becoming a reality for increasing oil recovery. This study investigates how oil recoveries from shales can be increased by (1) a combination of refracturing and huff and puff gas injection, and (2) huff and puff gas injection when the length of the gas injection and production cycles are increased over time. The possibility of improving oil recoveries from shales by a combination of refracturing and huff and puff gas injection is investigated using a compositional simulation approach. Previous studies published in the literature, have considered the implementation of regular constant-time cycles throughout the huff and puff process. This may not be the optimum strategy. In this work, the use of cycles with increasing time-lengths is investigated with a view to maximize the oil recovery by huff and puff gas injection. The combination of (1) huff and puff gas injection followed by (2) refracturing and (3) stopping gas injection is found to be a good option to increase oil recovery from shale petroleum reservoirs when the initial hydraulic fracturing (IHF) has been successful. The benefits of this approach are demonstrated through a comparison made when refracturing is carried out without previous huff and puff injection. If the IHF has not been implemented properly, the huff and puff gas injection does not provide attractive recoveries. In this case, a refracturing job followed by huff and puff gas injection is shown to improve recoveries significantly. A comparison of the different scenarios considered in this paper shows that proper design of the injection and production schedule is very important in the development of a huff and puff gas injection. Optimizing the schedule by using the appropriate cycles with variable increasing-time spans can lead to improving the huff and puff performance. This study investigates how to increase oil recovery from shale petroleum reservoirs by (1) the combined use of refracturing and huff and puff gas injection, and (2) the use of cycles of variable length as opposed to the regular-length constant-time cycles considered in previous publications. To the best of our knowledge, the two cases considered in this paper are novel and have not been published previously in the literature.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.231 · 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