Pressure Normalized Decline Curve Analysis for Rate-Controlled Wells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decline curve analysis based on rate-time data is the standard method of evaluating on-shore North American oil and gas reserves. Aside from the classical hyperbolic curve fitting methodology originally proposed by Arps (1945), there have been several new empirical techniques developed for unconventional shale and tight gas reservoirs such as the stretched exponential method (Valko et al., 2010) and Duong method (Duong, 2011). The successful application of methods based only on rate data, however, is usually limited to wells with constant (or close to constant) flowing pressure. High deliverability unconventional plays such as the Haynesville and Eagle Ford are characterized by rate-controlled flow for extended periods of time. Interpretation of these flow periods using rate-time techniques can be misleading, as the bulk of the reservoir response is contained in the flowing pressure data. In this paper, we propose a straightforward methodology for forecasting the production of high pressure unconventional wells under controlled drawdown. The methodology involves the use of a pressure normalized decline curve, and therefore requires measurement of wellhead flowing pressures. As we will show, the results are consistent with those of more complex analytical and numerical models, but the method does not require any knowledge about, nor does it make any assumptions about the physics of fluid flow in the reservoir. The approach is systematic and repeatable, making it an ideal reserves evaluation tool. The method is validated using synthetic and field data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it