MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229526898 · doi:10.2118/spe-173368-ms

Evolution of Completion Techniques in the Lower Shaunavon Tight Oil Play in Southwestern Saskatchewan

2015· article· en· W4229526898 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompletion (oil and gas wells)Tight oilDirectional drillingGeologyPetroleum engineeringDrillingUnconventional oilDrillCoiled tubingMining engineeringOil shaleEngineeringMechanical engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Oil and Gas industry has explored and developed the Lower Shaunavon formation through vertical drilling and completion technology. In 2006, previously uneconomic oil reserves in the Lower Shaunavon were unlocked through horizontal drilling and completions technologies. This success is similar to the developments seen in many other formations within the Williston Basin and Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin including Crescent Point Energy's Viewfield Bakken play in southeast Saskatchewan. In the Lower Shaunavon play, the horizontal multistage completion era began in 2006, with horizontal divisions of four to six completion stages per well that utilized ball-drop sleeves and open-hole packers. By 2010, the stage count capabilities of ball-drop systems had increased and liners with nine to 16 stages per well were being run. With an acquisition in 2009, Crescent Point Energy began operating in the Lower Shaunavon area. The acquisition was part of the company's strategy to acquire large oil-in-place resource plays. Recognizing the importance that technology brings to these plays, Crescent Point Energy has continuously developed and implemented new technology. In 2009, realizing the success of coiled tubing fractured cemented liners in the southeast Saskatchewan Viewfield Bakken play, Crescent Point Energy trialed their first cemented liners in the Lower Shaunavon formation. At the same time, technology progressed with advancements in completion strategies that were focused on fracture fluids, fracture stages, tool development, pump rates, hydraulic horsepower, environmental impact, water management, and production. In 2013, another step change in technology saw the implementation of coiled tubing activated fracture sleeves in cemented liner completions. Based on field trials and well results in Q4 2013, Crescent Point Energy committed to a full cemented liner program in the Lower Shaunavon. This paper presents the evolution of Crescent Point Energy's Lower Shaunavon resource play of southwest Saskatchewan. The benefits of current completion techniques are: reductions in water use, increased production, competitive well costs, and retained wellbore functionality for potential re-fracture and waterflooding programs.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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