Codell Restimulations Evolve to 200% Rate of Return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Codell Restimulations Evolve to 200% Rate of Return C. Emrich; C. Emrich BJ Services Company Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar D. Shaw; D. Shaw Patina Oil & Gas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar S. Reasoner; S. Reasoner Patina Oil & Gas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar D. Ponto D. Ponto Patina Oil & Gas Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 2001. Paper Number: SPE-67211-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/67211-MS Published: March 24 2001 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Emrich, C., Shaw, D., Reasoner, S., and D. Ponto. "Codell Restimulations Evolve to 200% Rate of Return." Paper presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/67211-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium / Production and Operations Symposium Search Advanced Search AbstractThe Codell formation is a low permeability, clay rich, late Cretaceous agesandstone within the Wattenberg field of the DJ Basin. Since 1997 over 1500Codell wells have been restimulated. Results on the past 200 refractured Codellwells using a reduced CMG polymer fluid system have yielded incremental monthlyproduction results in excess of 1900 BOE/well or approximately 80% of theoriginal initial production. Success of this program is believed to be thecombination of stringent well selection criteria, high fluid quality controlguidelines and effective operational field practices. It is believed that dueto this recent success in restimulating the Codell, over 4000 additional wellswithin the DJ Basin may be restimulated with economic benefits.This paper will discuss completion history of the Codell formation and howcriteria from candidate selection to fluid quality may impact the success ofsuch a program.IntroductionRecords indicate that the first Codell completion in the Wattenberg field ofthe Denver-Julesburg basin occurred in 1955. It was not until the early 1980'sthat the Codell became a major gas play. Since that time thousands of Codellwells have been developed within an area of approximately 100,000,000acres.1 The DJ basin shown in Figure 1 is an asymmetricalbasin just north of Denver, Colorado with the axis of the basin runningparallel to the Front Range uplift.The Codell, described as Type 2 sandstone by Weimer andSonnenberg2, is a member of the Upper Cretaceous Carlile shale. Itis a bioturbated, reworked fine-grained marine shelf sandstone without acentral bar facies and is laterally continuous across the field area. Figure2 is a stratigraphic sequence of formations bounding the Codell within theDJ Basin. Over the years, many wells have included the Niobrara formation bymeans of separate completions on both the Niobrara and Codell or simultaneouslystimulating both formations with limited entry techniques.3Production from the Niobrara often times has proved to be limited due tonanodarcy matrix permeability. Due to the Niobrara inconsistency, a greatnumber of wells were completed solely in the Codell interval.These reservoirs were initially over pressured with a pore pressure gradientof ±0.60 psi/ft.4 Pay thickness in the Codell can range from 14 to20 ft. within the central portion of the basin at typical depths of 7000 - 7200feet. Bottom hole temperatures are generally between 230–250° F BHST. It is aclay rich sandstone (15–25% by volume) with pore filling and pore lining mixedlayer illite/smecite clays. Permeability is low (i.e., <0.1 millidarcies), with Density log measured porosity ranging from 8 to 20%.Aggressive exploration and development of the Codell led to severalexperimental completion techniques throughout the years. Wells were stimulatedwithout regard to geological and lithologic variations. A wide range of fluidtypes and treatment designs were implemented in order to achieve an economicalrate of return.Original Codell CompletionsAn obvious contributor to the potential for restimulations is the originalcompletion. The Codell formation has a history that begins in the middle 1950'sand continues today with the continued drilling of acreage within the DJ Basin.Original completion techniques and stimulation fluids utilized have affectedthe results of restimulation programs. Keywords: hydroxypropyl guar, algorithm, upstream oil & gas, codell restimulation evolve, peak rate, artificial intelligence, restimulation, permeability, spe 67211, fluid type Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Formation Evaluation & Management, Unconventional and Complex Reservoirs, Drillstem/well testing, Well Intervention, Re-stimulation (excluding re-fraccing), Gas-condensate reservoirs 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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.025 |
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".