MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921085261 · doi:10.2118/189853-ms

Frac Hit Induced Production Losses: Evaluating Root Causes, Damage Location, Possible Prevention Methods and Success of Remediation Treatments, Part II

2018· article· en· W2921085261 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
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpark plugFracture (geology)Petroleum engineeringProduction (economics)Stage (stratigraphy)GeologyPermianInterference (communication)Shut downEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringStructural basinEngineeringPaleontologyMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringProcess engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Millions of dollars in production losses are occurring from fracture-driven well-to-well interference (frac hits) in horizontal wells in unconventional play reservoirs. The work presented in SPE 187192 has been continued in this paper with a new case study (Case Study V), data from a pair of Wolfcamp B wells in the Permian Basin. The parent well suffered fracture interference during the child well's stimulation operations, negatively effecting production. The child and parent wells were both completed with the "plug and perf" technique. The parent well was completed with 74 stages while the child well's completion consisted of 105 frac stages. The child well was drilled with a longer lateral and the first 72 stages of the well's fracturing operations caused clear, repeatable pressure changes in the parent well. The data from these two wells is rich in cause and effect and permits compelling observations and conclusions. These findings were then compared to those from Case Studies I-IV, SPE 187192. Detailed plots of the pressure changes superimposed with fracturing data were created and studied to better understand the significance and cause of what was happening to the Case Study V parent well. The shut-in pressure data from the parent well was taken at the intake of the electrical submersible pump (ESP) and recorded in 1-3 minute increments. Both wells have the same number of perf clusters per stage, stage spacing and amount of sand per stage. One-second fracture stimulation data for both completions was available. Case Study V plots and examples from Case Studies I-IV were put side-to-side and back-to-back to quickly view the similarities and differences. Fact-based conclusions were reached regarding causality of fracture-driven communication and interference between these wells. Preface The study for this paper is based on and uses data from nearly 200 individual fracture stimulation stages pumped in five pairs of wells. In order to document and discuss that much information, there are numerous plots and illustrations. While this is perhaps unconventional, it must be pointed out that a paper that is focused on data MUST show the data. Time constraints prevented the inclusion of several additional plots and "Part III" is being planned and is in the works. SPE 187192 (part I), King et al (2017) will be referred to several times and a few of the old plots are shown. There are new plots and observations from Case Studies I-IV.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.293 · 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