Quantifying the Results of Horizontal Multistage Development in Tight Oil Reservoirs of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin: Technical and Economic Case Studies From a Reservoir Evaluator’s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advances in horizontal drilling and multistage completion technologies have unlocked vast quantities of previously inaccessible oil reserves. Since 2006, thousands of horizontal multistage wells have been drilled into numerous low permeability oil reservoirs in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin including the Bakken, Cardium, Viking and Shaunavon formations. Early horizontal multistage wells had relatively short horizontal sections with two to four completion stages per well and have evolved over time to include wells in certain areas that have up to two mile horizontal sections and over 25 individual completion stages. Along with the technical advancements that have occurred recently, operators are actively seeking new reservoirs in which to apply them. This paper presents a brief historical look back at a few of the major areas that have been developed to date. Specifically, the light oil developments of the Bakken formation in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and North Dakota, the Cardium formation in Alberta, the Viking formation in Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Lower Shaunavon formation in Saskatchewan are studied in detail and comparisons drawn. Type curves are presented by vintage for each play showing the progression of advancing technology countered by operator desire to push the development into reservoir of diminishing quality. Specific technical metrics regarding initial production rates and decline rates are compared and contrasted. Average expected ultimate recoveries are estimated based on decline analysis and the authors experience completing detailed reserve evaluations for operators in their respective development areas. Based on the statistical study of performance to date and the estimates of ultimate recovery a type well based on current development is generated for each of the areas. Economic modeling based on the generated type wells and a comparison of the various development areas is presented using a number of financial and industry metrics. Despite vast differences in productivity and recovery per well between the plays, the economic analysis reveals that bigger is not necessarily better.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".