Play-Wide Well Performance Analysis in Montney Siltstone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multi-stage fractured horizontal wells (MFHW) in unconventional resource plays often present formidable reservoir management challenges, particularly with regard to capital utilization and allocation. In this study, well performance histories of some 74 wells in the Montney siltstone play were investigated with a common and consistent analytical framework. Parameters determined from the analyses are key indicators of the combined result of reservoir quality and hydraulic fracture performance (subsurface and completions). The analytical approach utilized in this study was then used to provide robust physics-based forecasts that directly recognize and incorporate interpretation non-uniqueness. Through a forecasting regimen that explicitly provides expected ranges of results, insights and conclusions in field optimization, well spacing and completions design have been drawn. A real distribution of well productivity and predicted recovery enabled identification of "sweet spots". Openhole completions technique did not show poorer performance compared to limited entry style completions, though further evaluation and surveillance would seem warranted. Wells that were flowing under a "high-drawdown" showed a lower productivity, higher completion resistance (skin) to flow, and lowest predicted final recovery. Wells completed at 50 m fracture spacing and 30 tonnes of proppant per cluster performed similarly to 100 m spacing and 60 tonnes per cluster, suggesting no apparent difference in capital efficiency between these two completion styles. Results indicate that the frac half lengths in the 50 m cluster spacing wells are shorter compared to wells with 100 m cluster spacing (based on the reduction in the amount of proppant pumped per cluster). Trends of estimated original gas-in-place inside the SRV and predicted 30-year recovery for wells drilled at close well spacings, (closer than 400 m between wellbores) indicate effects of inter-well interference. Performance of wells at 200 m well spacing seem to be affected the most by inter-well interference. A consistent workflow for analyzing well performance and predicting future performance of MFHW in unconventional gas wells is presented that provides a means to assess the impact of business and development decisions and determining practices worth replicating across the Montney play.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".