MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088198731 · doi:10.2118/202056-ms

Field Testing of the Flowback Technology for Multistage-Fractured Horizontal Wells: Test Results and Primary Interpretation of the Results

2020· article· en· W3088198731 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 Russian Petroleum Technology Conference · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellheadPetroleum engineeringHydraulic fracturingWell test (oil and gas)ChokeGeologyInjection wellFracturing fluidVolumetric flow rateCompletion (oil and gas wells)Geotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper presents the results of applying the methodology of well flowback and startup after hydraulic fracturing (HF), previously proposed in (Osiptsov et al., 2019), where the preferred conditions for well flowback after hydraulic fracturing are formulated in the form of a field experiment program. The program was implemented in 2019-2020 at four out of ten wells of the Priobskoye field in Western Siberia. The comparison of the two well clean-up designs, "smooth" and "aggressive", aimed to confirm the hypothesis that the choice of a "smooth" mode can reduce undesirable geomechanical effects to preserve the fracture conductivity and increase the recovery. Adapting our own hydrodynamic and geomechanical models to actual data made it possible to control the well clean-up process in the wells of a field experiment. Well site supervision allowed authors to fully implement the research plan, and also provided the opportunity to vary the parameters of the experiment (adjusting flowrate over time, adjusting the sampling and measurement schedules) using history matched models with actual parameters of the wells. Based on the results, the obtained data were analyzed and interpreted: flow rate, water cut, bottomhole and wellhead pressure, bottomhole temperature, suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentration, drain level, expedition pump frequency and wellhead samples. At the planning stage of the experiment, a formation zone of interest (ZOI) was selected with a set of first six pilot wells, where the geomechanical effects during the flowback period have the greatest impact on production. The field experiment program, which contains the wellhead choke steps sequence of diameters and duration of the well clean-up periods for two scenarios - "aggressive" and "smooth" for particular well. In addition to the choke schedule during eruptive period, there is a need to continue the recommended well startup after the ESP run in hole (RIH). Representativeness and repeatability conditions of field tests were formulated, comparison metrics were developed in order to standardize, normalize and estimate the well performance of the well startup a. We carried out the design of a field experiment proposed in 2019 (Osiptsov et al., 2019) and showed in practice that the dynamics of the well flowback and startup affects the well productivity index for a selected ZOI. In addition, we history-matched in-house geomechanical and hydrodynamic in order to quantify the production increase with regards to different flowback scenarios. Based on the available data, the boundaries of the pressure fluctuations opposite the hydraulic fracturing ports in the horizontal well were calculated in the absence of actual measurements to clarify the conditions for maintaining the conductivity of the fracture.

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)0.002
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 score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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