MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2987248889 · doi:10.2118/197550-ms

Acid-Fracturing Techniques as a Good Alternative to Help Improve Field Development Assets

2019· article· en· W2987248889 on OpenAlexaff
José María Petriz Munguía, Blanca Estela González Valtierra, Javier Trujillo Hernandez, Sarai Santos, Katya Campos Monroy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsHaliburton Forest & Wild Life Reserve
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringDolomitePermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyCarbonateWellboreOil fieldOil productionPorosityEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMineralogyGeotechnical engineeringChemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acidizing and acid fracturing techniques are routinely used in two important formations in the marine regions of Mexico, the Jurassic and Cretaceous formations. These formations are naturally fractured carbonate and dolomite reservoirs having a permeability in the range of 0.19 to 22 mD, porosity from 2.8 to 6%, approximate bottomhole temperature (BHT) up to 177°C, pressure (BHP) of 10,374 psi, and a crude of 45° API. Using acid fracturing techniques helps improve the development of these assets. This paper shows the results of more than 40 acid fracturing operations performed in recent years. Depending on the productivity evaluation, wells belonging to these assets are stimulated as part of the completion stage. Because of their low permeability, a common approach is to perform an acid fracturing operation. As a first evaluation, a minifrac test is executed to obtain the necessary data to calibrate the acid fracturing simulation model. After this step is performed, the acid fracturing design is evaluated. Generally, a sustained production acidizing technique is used for conductivity enhancement and closed-fracture acidizing is also included as a tailored treatment with an all seawater-based acidizing system. For these operations, an average five-fold increase in oil production has been observed after treatment. In some cases wells in the completion stage, having no production before treatment, delivered up to 7000 BOPD after treatment. In these low-permeability assets, the post-fracturing response shows good results in general terms, increasing final conductivity in the near-wellbore area, and improving the production in these wells. The fracture gradient observed varies from 0.715 to 0.981 psi/ft with an average minimum stress of 13,670 psi. To perform the acid fracturing treatments, an average of 6400 hydraulic horsepower (HHP) must be available, with up to 13,400-psi surface pressure observed. As such, a stimulation vessel is necessary in all operations, applying a 26-bbl/min average pumping rate. Globally, acid fracturing treatments are a common stimulation technique. This study shows that stimulating proper candidates in Mexico using acid fracturing significantly helps increase production, which may be relevant for the exploitation of new areas where fracturing has not been implemented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→