Obtaining Reservoir Insights From Database On Infill/Step-Out Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The wealth of data on infill/step-out wells in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) implicitly includes clues to various reservoir characteristics, but techniques for evaluation were not obvious to us. We tried different ways of deriving meaningful insights and present three examples here. We compared the values of the average and the median performance parameters for specific populations of wells. Generally, the average rate was larger than the median. We also prepared frequency plots and their representation on the normal (standard deviation) scale for the wells in each group. From these plots, we were able to characterize the lateral heterogeneity of the reservoirs. These could also be used in analyses of risks in future projects. Risk analysis can also be aided by other features of frequency distributions. A rate-cumulative production plot was also helpful in determining acceleration and incremental reserves benefits resulting from infill drilling. Introduction Production performance of three Canadian pools with large numbers of infill/step-out wells were reviewed. One of these was a light oil carbonate reservoir in the Williston Basin. The other two pools were clastic reservoirs from the WCSB; one containing heavy oil (Medicine Hat Glauconitic C) and the other gas (Kirby U&L Mannville MU #1). A major objective was to show how a relatively simple statistical analysis of the performance curves could provide useful insights about the reservoirs, and also, to present a method to qualitatively/ quantitatively characterize the lateral heterogeneity as well as risks in developing similar pools by infill drilling. In addition, we also illustrate here how the oil rate-cumulative production plot could be used to identify contributions due to acceleration and incremental recovery. We illustrate the application of some of the ideas discussed in our previous papers(1–5). Methodology Our main data sources were the Alberta provincial oil and gas reserves publications. Production data were obtained from a commercial database. An in-house spreadsheet-based statistical program was used for analyzing/sorting the data and developing various statistical parameters, tables and graphs. The production data were collected for each well in these pools, drilled between 1980 and 2005–12. The initial rate of the median well was obtained by referencing the wells to their start-up (zero time). The initial rate was the average of rates for the first 2,000 hours. The choice of the first 2,000 hours, or 3 months, is purely arbitrary to ensure that the well had cleaned itself and achieved stabilized productivity. A rate-time plot for the first five years was prepared for the median wells. For example, see Figure 1a for vertical and horizontal infill wells in the Gainsborough Frobisher-Alida Pool. Similar plots were also generated for the average, the 25 and the 75 percentile wells. Cumulative production was also plotted as a function of standard deviation. Standard deviations around the mean were plotted on the x-axis (normal scale) and cumulative production on the y-axis (log scale). Most of these plots showed a fairly linear trend, reflecting a log-normal type distribution. The slope of the plot reflects the lateral heterogeneity of the reservoir(1).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".