Proppant Placement in the Barnett Shale When Perforations are Selected in Like-Rock
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In previous frac designs, proppant tracer logs revealed poor proppant distribution between clusters. In this study, various technologies were utilized to improve cluster efficiency, primarily focusing on selecting perforations in like-rock, adjusting perforation designs and the use of diverters. Effectiveness of the changes were analyzed using proppant tracer. This study consisted of a group of four wells completed sequentially. Sections of each well were divided into completion design groups characterized by different perforating methodologies. Perforation placement was primarily driven by RockMSE (Mechanical Specific Energy), a calculation derived from drilling data that relates to a rock's compressive strength. Additionally, the RockMSE values were compared alongside three different datasets: gamma ray collected while drilling, a calculation of stresses from accelerometer data placed at the bit, and Pulsed Neutron Cross Dipole Sonic log data. The results of this study showed strong indications that fluid flow is greatly affected by rock strength as mapped with the RockMSE, with fluid preferentially entering areas with low RockMSE. It was found that placing clusters in similar rock types yielded an improved fluid distribution. Additional improved fluid distribution was observed by adjusting hole diameter, number of perforations and pump rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it