Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracturing with Crosslinked Methanol in Water-Sensitive Formations Mark R. Malone Mark R. Malone BJ Services Company USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, May 2001. Paper Number: SPE-70009-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/70009-MS Published: May 15 2001 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Malone, Mark R. "Fracturing with Crosslinked Methanol in Water-Sensitive Formations." Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, May 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/70009-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractThe use of methanol in fracturing is not new technology. Its origin and application in hydraulic fracturing can be traced back to the 1960's. However, advances in fracturing fluid chemistry and breaker technology have improved dramatically creating new systems such as crosslinked methanol, the subject of this paper. Methanol has been utilized in the well stimulation industry for many years to take advantage of its low surface tension properties and miscibility with various formation fluids. This paper will discuss advances in crosslinked methanol system technology, system compatabilities, field application and practical safety precautions. The fluid system rheological properties and proper breaker application will be discussed as well.In recent years, the industry has become more aware of the challenges associated with formations recognized as "water sensitive". These issues can be associated with mobile and swelling clays, or undersaturation of the formation, otherwise known as aqueous phase trapping. The paper will discuss these issues as they pertain to proper fluid selection and more specifically, the selection of crosslinked methanol as a fracturing fluid.Formation properties of zones treated with crosslinked methanol will be presented as well as post fracture treatment results.IntroductionCrosslinked anhydrous methanol is an excellent fracture fluid system comprised of approximately 96%-100% pure methanol developed to stimulate low permeability water sensitive formations. In the late 1960's, fracturing fluid systems incorporating carbon dioxide (CO2) and methanol saw wide usage and some success in fracturing applications. These systems were used in an attempt to place proppant into a hydraulically induced fracture without the potential damage associated with water on "tight" formations displaying water sensitive tendencies. In the early 1970's, certain patents were awarded for a methanol fluid system termed "Vapor Frac," which consisted of transporting propping agents in gelled alcohol and CO21. This system was used for several years with varying degrees of success due to limited sand transport capabilities and poor fluid leak-off properties. In 1980, the first crosslinked methanol system was introduced to the industry. However, at this time the system incorporated 80% pure methanol and 20% water. While this system was compatible with CO2, it did not fully address the water sensitivity issue. By the late 1980's the first pure (96% methanol plus) methanol fluid system was developed and introduced to the industry, and saw wide use throughout Western Canada.In late 1992, additional opportunities to apply this technology presented themselves and research was undertaken to apply new fluid technology to crosslinked methanol. The system was introduced in Argentina; originally, to reduce treatment cost relative to CO2 foam systems prevalent at that time. Since then, more than 200 jobs have been pumped2. The accumulated experience gained in Argentina further enhanced and expanded the original intended applications.In late 1998, depressed crude oil prices and a subsequent decline in drilling operations in the Permian Basin caused pumping service companies to seek applications for this improved crosslinked methanol fluid system in existing producing wells. The hope was to create a stimulation market in gas wells perceived as water sensitive, depleted or damaged to a point that conventional stimulation was not believed to be an option. It is in this application that crosslinked methanol has seen its greatest success in the Permian Basin. Keywords: drillstem testing, aqueous phase saturation, spe 70009, petroleum society, crosslinked methanol, methanol treatment, fracturing fluid, bj service company, saturation, methanol Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Formation Evaluation & Management, Fracturing materials (fluids, proppant), Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2001. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".