Proppant Placement in the Barnett Shale When Perforations are Selected in Like-Rock
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".