MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991048915

Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracture Performance in the Viking Formation Using a Data-Driven Approach

2020· dissertation· en· W6991048915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingWell stimulationCompletion (oil and gas wells)Directional drillingHyperparameterFracture (geology)Metric (unit)DrillingLinear regressionPredictive modelling
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exploitation of oil from unconventional reservoirs has increased rapidly due to recent advances in horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. One of the main challenges in the exploitation of unconventional resources is the optimization of stimulation designs to maximize well performance. In recent years, data-driven methods have played a vital role in achieving operational, performance, and economic efficiencies in such resources. \n\nIn this study, data-driven predictive models were developed to evaluate hydraulic fracture stimulation design parameters and to identify oil production drivers in the Viking Formation. Both Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and Random Forest (RF) models were used to analyze the data from 845 multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal wells in the Viking formation, Saskatchewan, Canada. Reservoir characteristics, such as well geographic location, average gas-oil ratio, net pay, and stimulation design parameters, including completion length, proppant concentration, proppant intensity, were included as inputs in the models. 365-day cumulative oil production (IP365) was used as a metric for well performance.\n\nMLR and RF were successfully used to develop models for predicting IP365. The performance of both models was compared, and RF model was selected for further investigation due to its superior performance. The optimum combination of hyperparameters for RF was found using Random Search and Grid Search methods. Furthermore, the K-Fold Cross Validation approach was employed to validate the predictive and generalization capabilities of the model. The importance of reservoir and stimulation parameters with respect to well performance was determined using the Permutation Feature Importance technique.\n\nModeling results indicated that completion length has the largest impact on oil production, followed by proppant intensity (proppant volume by completion length) and reservoir characteristics such as net pay. Furthermore, a high gas-oil ratio was found to have a detrimental effect on oil production. Partial dependence plots were used to visualize the relationship between each predictor variable and the model output. Results showed that, on average, wells in the study area with lateral length greater than 750 m tend to have above-average IP365. Proppant intensities ranging from 0.37 t/m to 0.49 t/m seem to be effective. A diminishing effect on production is observed in wells treated with higher values of proppant intensity. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values were estimated to understand well performance on a well-by-well-basis. This method provided insights about the interactions between the predictor variables and the model output. \n\nResults from this study will be helpful for stimulation and production engineers to optimize stimulation designs and maximize well productivity in the Viking Formation. This data-driven approach can be applied to any other plays and seamlessly integrated in workflow processes. Moreover, this methodology allows engineers and geoscientists to make informed decisions in rapidly changing environments.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207