MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161944616 · doi:10.2118/204200-ms

Application of DFIT-FBA Tests Performed at Multiple Points in a Horizontal Well for Advanced Treatment Stage Design and Reservoir Characterization

2021· article· en· W3161944616 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 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsChevron (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellheadHydraulic fracturingPetroleum engineeringChokeWell stimulationPerforationReservoir engineeringTortuosityCompletion (oil and gas wells)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringPetroleumMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The DFIT flowback analysis (DFIT-FBA) method, recently developed by the authors, is a new approach for obtaining minimum in-situ stress, reservoir pressure, and well productivity index estimates in a fraction of the time required by conventional DFITs. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the application of DFIT-FBA to hydraulic fracturing design and reservoir characterization by performing tests at multiple points along a horizontal well completed in an unconventional reservoir. Furthermore, new corrections are introduced to the DFIT-FBA method to account for perforation friction, tortuosity, and wellbore unloading during the flowback stage of the test. The time and cost efficiency associated with the DFIT-FBA method provides an opportunity to conduct multiple field tests without delaying the completion program. Several trials of the new method were performed for this study. These trials demonstrate application of the DFIT-FBA for testing multiple points along the lateral of a horizontal well (toe stage and additional clusters). The operational procedure for each DFIT-FBA test consists of two steps: 1) injection to initiate and propagate a mini hydraulic fracture and 2) flowback of the injected fluid on surface using a variable choke setting on the wellhead. Rate transient analysis methods are then applied to the flowback data to identify flow regimes and estimate closure and reservoir pressure. Flowing material balance analysis is used to estimate the well productivity index for studied reservoir intervals. Minimum in-situ stress, pore pressure and well productivity index estimates were successfully obtained for all the field trials and validated by comparison against a conventional DFIT. The new corrections for friction and wellbore unloading improved the accuracy of the closure and reservoir pressures by 4%. Furthermore, the results of flowing material balance analysis show that wellbore unloading might cause significant over-estimation of the well productivity index. Considerable variation in well productivity index was observed from the toe stage to the heel stage (along the lateral) for the studied well. This variation has significant implications for hydraulic fracture design optimization, particularly treatment pressures and volumes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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