MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2923499434 · doi:10.2118/0419-0012-jpt

Comments: Shale’s Second Act

2019· article· en· W2923499434 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Donnelly

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnergy
ThématiqueGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOil shaleShale oilShale oil extractionTight oilPetroleum industryChinaFossil fuelAgricultural economicsBusinessEconomyEngineeringEconomicsGeographyWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Editor's column Another industry report issued last month touts the coming gains in US shale, predicting that the country will soon be the largest oil producer and possibly exporter in the world. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Oil 2019, a 5-year outlook on the global energy industry, touts the “second wave” of the shale sector, which will transform oil markets worldwide. The IEA says the US will lead the way in oil supply growth over the next 5 years because of continued growth in shale, primarily from the Permian Basin. By the end of that 5-year period, the US will surpass Russia and be close to Saudi Arabia in total oil exports. Although consumption from China will decline and the use of electric vehicles will grow, demand will be stronger for jet fuel and petrochemicals, leading to an annual global increase of 1.2 million B/D. US oil output will account for almost three-fourths of the supply increase over the period, growing a total of 4.4 million B/D, following a production increase of 2.2 million B/D in 2018. “The second wave of the US shale revolution is coming,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in releasing the report. US oil output, including natural gas liquids, will rise to 19.6 million B/D by 2024. Excluding liquids, oil production will increase from the current 11 million B/D to 13.7 million B/D. One transformation taking place in the US shale sector is the entry of majors. Independents have dominated the play so far, led by such companies as Pioneer and Apache. But the short-cycle production time and geopolitical safety is increasingly attracting interest from large firms such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. ExxonMobil and Chevron announced plans last month to increase spending even more in the Permian Basin over the next few years. Although the industry has consistently underestimated US shale growth, some producers and engineers have a more nuanced outlook for the sector. There are potential hurdles to overcome if shale is going to continue to be the star in the global supply picture. Steep decline curves, parent-child well interference (or frac hits), and perhaps even a lower inventory of high-quality drilling locations are concerns. The issue of frac hits dominated discussion at the recent SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. Parent-child well interactions may be lowering oil recovery factors from new child wells by 20–40% while also causing losses on older, yet less productive, parent wells, according to US and Canadian operators. That has led Mark Papa, one of the pioneers in US shale and chief executive officer of Centennial Development Resources, to become less optimistic about the future of US shale production. Frac hits and fewer high-quality drilling options may force a lower ceiling on shale, undermining these optimistic forecasts, which leads him to believe that the shale sector is already in its mature phase of producibility, he said during a panel discussion at the IHS Markit CERAWeek conference in Houston last month. But panelist Greg Powers, vice president of global innovation at Halliburton, cautioned that most of the learnings from shale to date have been experiential, not fundamental, and that a lot of the resource is still in the ground. In addition, he said, the chemistry of hydraulic fracturing is still a bit of a mystery. In other words, there is still much to figure out before concluding whether shale’s second act is its final one.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,900
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchTravaux en français237 207