MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992083429 · doi:10.2118/170767-pa

A Semianalytical Forecasting Method for Unconventional Gas and Light Oil Wells: A Hybrid Approach for Addressing the Limitations of Existing Empirical and Analytical Methods

2015· article· en· W1992083429 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)Material balanceFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringMathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceEconometricsApplied mathematicsGeologyEngineeringProcess engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The rapid pace of exploitation of unconventional gas and light oil plays in North America has necessitated the development of new production-forecasting methodologies to aid in reserves assessment, capital planning, and field optimization. The generation of defendable forecasts is challenged not only by reservoir complexities but also by the use of multifractured horizontal wells (MFHWs) for development. In this work, a semianalytical method (SAM) is developed to provide a solid theoretical basis for forecasting. The technique is analytical in that it uses the methods of Agarwal (2010) to calculate contacted oil in place and contacted gas in place (COIP/CGIP) from production rates, flowing pressures, and fluid properties. The rate-normalized pressure (RNP) derivative (RNP′) is a key component of the calculation; pseudopressure is used for gas cases. The technique is also empirical in that an empirical function is fitted to the resulting COIP/CGIP curve vs. time. Although the method is flexible enough that any equation can be used to represent the COIP/CGIP curve, and hence, the sequence of flow regimes exhibited by MFHWs, the equation must be capable of being integrated to allow the extraction of RNP. The stabilized COIP/CGIP during boundary-dominated flow (BDF) must be specified for forecasting—thereafter, the method uses a material-balance simulator to model BDF. Hence, if the well is still in transient flow, a range in forecasts may be generated, depending on the assumed stabilized COIP/CGIP. The new SAM addresses some of the current limitations of empirical and fully analytical (modeling) approaches. Empirical methods, which have been adapted to account for long transient and transitional flow periods associated with ultralow-permeability reservoirs, lack a theoretical basis, and therefore input parameters may be difficult to constrain. However, empirical methods are simple to apply and require a minimum amount of data for forecasting. Analytical models, while representing the physics better, nonetheless require additional reservoir and hydraulic-fracture data that may not be available on every well in the field. The SAM proposed herein is intended to bridge the gap between empirical and modeling-based approaches—it is more rigorous than purely empirical methods, while requiring a lesser amount of data than fully analytical techniques. The new method is tested against simulated and field cases (tight oil and shale gas). Although a simple power-law function is used in the current work to represent the COIP/OGIP curve, which appears adequate for the cases studied, one should note that wells exhibiting long transitional flow periods (e.g., elliptical/radial) will likely require a different functional form.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.525
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.056 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it