MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236189444 · doi:10.2523/100434-ms

Field Study of Completion Fluids To Enhance Gas Production in the Barnett Shale

2006· article· en· W4236189444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glenn Penny, Terrell A. Dobkins, John Pursley

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPE Gas Technology Symposium · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationOil shaleLibrary scienceComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field Study of Completion Fluids To Enhance Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Glenn S. Penny; Glenn S. Penny CESI Chemical Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Terrell Allen Dobkins; Terrell Allen Dobkins Antero Resources Corp. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar John Thomas Pursley John Thomas Pursley CESI Chemical Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2006. Paper Number: SPE-100434-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/100434-MS Published: May 15 2006 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Penny, Glenn S., Dobkins, Terrell Allen, and John Thomas Pursley. "Field Study of Completion Fluids To Enhance Gas Production in the Barnett Shale." Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/100434-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Unconventional Resources Conference / Gas Technology Symposium Search Advanced Search AbstractIn this work field data and lab data are presented for various fluids pumped in the Barnett Shale. Recent fracture treatments have been light sand fracs in slick water consisting of water and friction reducer, with and without surfactants. Commonly used surfactants as well as a microemulsion system (ME) are evaluated.Lab data is presented that illustrates how the microemulsion accelerates the cleanup of injected fluids in tight gas cores. The microemulsion additive results in lower pressures to displace injected fluids from low permeability core samples and proppant packs. The relative perm to gas is increased substantially as the water saturation is decreased. The enhanced relative permeability mechanism is the alteration of the rock-fluid interfacial tension or contact angle. It is demonstrated that this alteration effectively lowers the capillary pressure and capillary end effect associated with fractures in low perm reservoirs by as much as 50%, thus mitigating phase trapping and therefore permitting an increased flow area to the fracture, hence longer effective frac lengths.Over 200 wells have been treated and analyzed in the Barnett Shale for this study. Several side by side comparisons of treatment variations are possible. The addition of the microemulsion to fracturing treatments has resulted in more than 50% increases in load recoveries and 30–40% increases in gas production. Pressure analysis of fractured wells shows that the damage factor is reduced by a factor of 2 in the Barnett shale with the inclusion of ME. This is a result of a combination of reduced depth of invasion, a higher relative perm in the invaded zone and/or longer effective frac lengths.IntroductionThe initial Barnett shale wells in the mid nineties were completed with massive hydraulic fracturing treatments with 1 million pounds of proppant carried in crosslinked gelled fluids. In an effort to reduce stimulation costs without reducing production, light sand fracturing emerged as the method of choice. The success has been attributed to the ability of the slick water treatments to contact a larger surface area of the reservoir with minimized fracturing fluid damage at the fracture face and within the proppant pack. Even in these smaller fracturing treatments up to 1.2 million gallons of water are pumped most often with friction reducer at 0.25 - 0.5 gal/1000 gal (gpt). Treatments examined in this work varied from 23,000 bbl and 140,000 lb of sand run at 0.25 to 1.0 ppg at an average rate of 65 bpm. From fracture diagnostic work it is apparent that the fluid travels down multiple fractures running southwest to northeast. This gives the opportunity for fluid invasion of the secondary permeability surrounding the fracture of some 250 ft on each side of the fracture fairway and been microseismically mapped to extend over 2000 ft from the wellbore. Propped fracture half-lengths are estimated at 1000 ft. with damage surrounding each frac. Figure 1 shows the extensive fracture system that is proposed from microseismic. Comparison of post frac flow back volumes to frac fluid load volumes shows that 60 to 90% of the injected fluid stays in the reservoir. The insert in Figure 1 illustrates fluid that is trapped near one of the fractures by high capillary pressures and capillary end effects. Keywords: Drillstem Testing, hydraulic fracturing, flow in porous media, drillstem/well testing, Upstream Oil & Gas, microemulsion system, water saturation, relative perm, contact angle, fracture Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Formation Evaluation & Management, Fracturing materials (fluids, proppant), Flow in porous media, Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2006. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPE Gas Technology SymposiumSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207