MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040879672 · doi:10.2118/197227-pa

The First Out-of-Sequence-Fracturing Field Test in North America: Key Learnings from Operation, Petrophysical Analysis, Fracture Modeling, and Production History Matching

2020· article· en· W3040879672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benyamin Yadali Jamaloei

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Production & Operations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFracture (geology)Hydraulic fracturingPetrophysicsSequence (biology)Stress fieldGeotechnical engineeringMining engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary One of the considerations in out-of-sequence-fracturing treatment is creating fracture complexity through reducing the in-situ differential stress to enhance hydraulic-fracture connectivity by activating natural fractures, fissures, faults, and cleats within the formation to create secondary or branch fractures (induced-stress-relief fractures) and connect them to the main biwing hydraulic fractures. In out-of-sequence fracturing, this is achieved by beginning fracturing Stage 1 at the toe of the well and then moving toward the heel and fracturing Stage 3 so that there is a degree of interference between the two fractures, followed by placing Stage 2 between the previously fractured Stages 1 and 3. Out-of-sequence fracturing in this mode ensures that the fracture in Stage 2 (center fracture) takes advantage of the altered stress in the rock and connects to the stress-relief fractures from the previous Stages 1 and 3 (outside fractures), thus enhancing the connectivity of the fracture network. The first successful field trial of out-of-sequence fracturing was executed by Lukoil in treating eight wells in western Siberia in 2014. The first case of out-of-sequence fracturing in North America was later conducted in western Canada in 2017, with eight more trials followed in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In this work, a 3D hydraulic-fracture-extension simulator is rigorously calibrated by history matching the observed treatment pressures from the out-of-sequence-fracturing field treatment in western Canada to reliably quantify the effective fracture geometries. Then, a separate set of fracture modeling is conducted to predict the hydraulic-fracture geometries in a conventional (sequential-fracturing) treatment of the same candidate well. Finally, production forecasting is used to assess the production potential from the candidate well according to each set of the generated fracture geometries from each of the scenarios (out-of-sequence fracturing vs. conventional sequential fracturing). The results of coupling the rigorously calibrated fracture modeling and production forecasting indicate noticeable production-uplift potential from a carefully designed out-of-sequence-fracturing vs. sequential-fracturing treatment. Besides, the discovered characteristic trends in fracture geometries in out-of-sequence fracturing confirm some of the findings obtained in a previous sensitivity analysis of out-of-sequence fracturing. The previous sensitivity study entailed analyzing nearly 200 fracture-modeling scenarios using a variety of geomechanical properties and treatment-design variables. These characteristic trends render unique opportunities and advantages for the optimization of fracturing treatments and field development. This work is the first attempt in comparative evaluation of the effect of out-of-sequence fracturing by incorporating the actual field data into fracture modeling coupled with production forecasting. The learnings from this multifaceted study are worth sharing with the industry and could be used to guide future successful designs of the out-of-sequence fracturing for completion optimization in both unconventional and conventional reservoirs. From a large-scale field-development perspective, when conducted in multiple wells, optimized out-of-sequence fracturing has the potential of rendering full-length interference effect and optimizing the stress shadowing while reducing the risk of well bashing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Production & OperationsSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207