MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002697080 · doi:10.2118/199744-ms

Perforating Trends, Technology and Evaluation in North America

2020· article· en· W3002697080 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 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsOncolytics Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingWellborePerforationPetroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)GeologyCluster (spacecraft)Pressure dropComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Perforating cemented casing is a staple for completing wells in every major basin in North America. The objective is to provide a highly conductive pathway between the wellbore and the target formation for both the stimulation and production fluids. New technology, statistical analysis, experimentation and trial-and-error are all used to find the optimal method for creating this pathway. Diagnostics like proppant tracers, downhole cameras, distributed temperature sensing (DTS), distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) and perforation friction pressure analysis can also be used to help evaluate the successes associated with the different methods for perforating. New technology in creating consistent hole perforations in a horizontal wellbore, without the need for mechanical centralization or positioning systems, has recently been developed. This method of perforating employs a specialty shaped charge that allows for more control in the distribution of entry hole diameter (EHD) across a given cluster. This provides operators a more predictable and consistent pathway from the wellbore to the formation. Not only is a consistent hole desirable in a standard multi-cluster stage treatment, but other recent completions trends can also benefit from increased precision in perforating. High density perforating (HDP) is being used in order to create more transverse fractures along the length of the well. A consistent hole allows for more precise estimations of pressure drop across each cluster in these mostly limited-entry or extreme limited entry (XLE) completions. Additionally, near-wellbore (NWB) perf sealing pods are being used to divert treatments from initially open clusters to bypassed or partially open clusters in an attempt to force perf cluster efficiencies higher and distribute stimulation fluids and proppant more evenly. Having a consistent hole for every perforation is ideal in attempting to seal the perforations in the NWB region with a fixed diameter pod. SPE 189900 (Senters, et al 2018) provides more detail on diversion optimization. Engineered completions design is employed in an attempt to selectively perforate rock within a stage with similar mechanical properties to drive stimulated cluster efficiencies higher. Perforating similar rock with a consistent hole shaped charge only stands to improve the chances of distributing the treatment more evenly throughout the clusters. This paper will provide insight into the recent trends in perforating which show an increase in the amount of consistent hole shaped charges versus conventional shaped charges like deep penetrating and large hole. Diagnostic data accompanies entry hole diameter statistics and friction pressure calculations for the consistent hole shaped charges in order to demonstrate how they differ from conventional shaped charges. Finally, proppant tracer diagnostics will highlight several case studies where consistent hole shaped charges or other recent perforating methods were employed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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