STUDY ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID SELECTION TO MAXIMIZE EFFECTIVE HYDRAULIC FRACTURE LENGTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective fracture length is often observed to be only a fraction of created fracture length. The poor fracture performance is consequence of poor recovery of fracturing fluid during flowback. This usually happens when water-based fracturing fluid is used in low permeability reservoir. Unrecovered fracturing fluid stays in formation and creates obstruction for hydrocarbon flow. The residue fluid which has become immobile reduces effective fracture length and thus decreases hydrocarbon production. The problem becomes more severe by the water-wet nature of most tight gas reservoirs. This study is conducted to evaluate performance of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as hydraulic fracturing fluid in order to maximize effective fracture length. The term LPG and propane are used interchangeably in this report, however they are all subject to propane. LPG has demonstrated quick and complete fracture fluid recovery, significant production improvements and longer effective fracture length. This is proven by the application of propane based hydraulic fracturing in McCully Gas Field, New Brunswick, Canada. Once well is drawn down during flow back, a large portion of injected LPG may be produced back as gas. The remaining LPG that remains in created fracture dissolved in formation hydrocarbon during production. For fields that has limited storage and handling facilities, return of LPG fracturing fluids can easily be flared during flowback.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".