MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4248193340 · doi:10.2523/75708-ms

Applied Reservoir Characterization for Maximizing Reserve Growth and Profitability in Tight Gas Sands: A Paradigm Shift in Development Strategies for Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs

2002· article· en· W4248193340 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of SPE Gas Technology Symposium · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProfitability indexTight gasCitationFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceMining engineeringGeologyBusinessEngineeringLibrary scienceHydraulic fracturing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Applied Reservoir Characterization for Maximizing Reserve Growth and Profitability in Tight Gas Sands: A Paradigm Shift in Development Strategies for Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs P.D. McKinney; P.D. McKinney Anadarko Canada Corp. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J.A. Rushing; J.A. Rushing Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar L.A. Sanders L.A. Sanders Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2002. Paper Number: SPE-75708-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/75708-MS Published: April 30 2002 Connected Content Related to: Maximizing Reserves Growth and Profitability in Tight Gas Sands Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation McKinney, P.D., Rushing, J.A., and L.A. Sanders. "Applied Reservoir Characterization for Maximizing Reserve Growth and Profitability in Tight Gas Sands: A Paradigm Shift in Development Strategies for Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs." Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/75708-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 Unconventional Resources Conference / Gas Technology Symposium Search Advanced Search AbstractThis paper proposes an alternative tight gas sand reservoir development strategy that allows operators to maximize gas recovery and net present value while minimizing capital expenditures. Our approach employs a "parallel" development technique where many reservoir performance evaluation and field development activities are performed almost concurrently, thus allowing an operator to identify the optimum well spacing early in the field's life. Successful application of this "parallel" development approach requires a coordinated reservoir description and characterization plan, reservoir modeling, and reservoir monitoring and surveillance. We also illustrate the economic advantages of our strategy with examples from a hypothetical tight gas sand reservoir.IntroductionUnconventional gas resources - fractured gas shales, coalbed methane and tight gas sands - constitute a significant percentage of the U.S. natural gas resource and offer tremendous potential for future reserve growth and production. Of the total unconventional gas resource base, tight gas sands have the largest proven potential. According to a recent study by the Gas Technology Institute,1 tight gas sands in the U.S. comprise 69% of gas production from all unconventional gas resources and account for 19% of the total gas production from both conventional and unconventional sources. The same study1 estimates total producible tight gas sand resources exceed 600 tcf, while economically recoverable reserves are 185 tcf.Similar to conventional oil and gas systems, tight gas sands are often characterized by complex geological and petrophysical systems as well as heterogeneities at all scales. Unlike conventional reservoirs, however, tight gas sands often exhibit unique gas storage and producing characteristics requiring more dense well spacing. As a result, the key to effectively exploiting low-permeability gas reservoirs is to develop the field at a sufficiently dense well spacing to maximize gas recovery while avoiding drilling more wells than is necessary, i.e., develop the field at the optimum well spacing. Furthermore, capital expenditures are minimized while profits are maximized when that optimum well spacing is achieved early in the field's life. Unfortunately, development of most tight gas sand fields typically follows a "series" approach where the initial development activity is followed by lengthy periods of production performance evaluation and surveillance separated by periods of additional drilling and down spacing. Under these conditions, the optimum field spacing may not be achieved until late in the field life.An example of a tight gas sand reservoir developed using a "series" approach is the Carthage Field located in Panola County, Texas. The field produces from the low-permeability upper Cotton Valley sands at depths from 9,000 to 10,000 ft. Sand porosities in the pay intervals range from 4% to 12% while the effective gas permeability is generally less than 0.01 md. Discovered in 1966, the field was developed initially on 640-acre well spacing. Following evaluation of the production performance, subsequent reductions in well spacing to 320 and 160 acres per well were allowed in 1981 and 1987, respectively. Field rules changes allowing optional 80-acre well spacing were implemented in 1996. A reservoir characterization and simulation study conducted almost thirty years after discovery2 suggested optimum field spacing might be less than 80 acres in some areas. Yet some operators have only recently begun infill drilling to 80-acre spacing. The field production and well development history are summarized in Fig. 1. Keywords: production data, development strategy, reserve growth, evaluation, water saturation, modeling & simulation, upstream oil & gas, permeability, paradigm shift, profitability Subjects: Formation Evaluation & Management This content is only available via PDF. 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

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.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,384
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,236
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · 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