MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995097062 · doi:10.2118/0911-0076-jpt

Defining Horizontal-Well Objectives in Unconventional and Tight Gas Reservoirs

2011· article· en· W1995097062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis Denney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTight gasDirectional drillingPetroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Unconventional oilDrillingTight oilFormation evaluationGeologyReservoir simulationPermeability (electromagnetism)Well controlHydraulic fracturingFossil fuelFracture (geology)Reservoir engineeringPetroleumOil shaleGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringChemistryMechanical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 137839, ’Defining Horizontal-Well Objectives in Tight and Unconventional Gas Reservoirs,’ by L.K. Britt, SPE, J.R. Jones, SPE, and W.K. Miller II, SPE, NSI Fracturing, prepared for the 2010 Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19-21 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Because unconventional and tight-formation gas reservoirs have poorer-quality pay, a well-planned completion and fracture-stimulation program is required to obtain an economical well. Economic-optimization studies for tight gas reservoirs highlight the importance of lateral length, number of fractures, interfracture distance, fracture half-length, and fracture conductivity. A horizontal-well decision tree was developed for evaluating the various drilling, completion, and stimulation issues encountered with horizontal wells in unconventional and tight-formation gas reservoirs. Introduction Operators have reported difficulty in fracture stimulating some deviated and horizontal wells. The difficulties are associated with increased treating pressures and elevated post-fracture instantaneous shut-in pressures. In unconventional and tight-formation gas reservoirs, greater operational control and reliability are necessary to maintain project economics. Optimization studies of these reservoirs showed the importance and value of integrating horizontal drilling, completion, and well-stimulation practices. To understand the horizontal-well objectives in these reservoirs, a simulation study was undertaken, and the economics of multiple-fractured horizontal wells in tight gas reservoirs was investigated. Of interest in this evaluation were reservoir, completion, and stimulation parameters. Net pay, reservoir pressure, and reservoir permeability were evaluated. For the completion practices, completion control was considered; and for fracture stimulation, the effects of fracture length and conductivity were considered in light of fractured-horizontal-well objectives. Finally, horizontal-well drilling, completion, and fracture-stimulation costs were considered along with economic parameters to ensure that the horizontal-well objectives were established for all environments. Recoverable-Reserves Considerations The study compared reservoirs with 25, 50, and 100 ft of net pay. For a reservoir with limited net pay (25 ft), the optimal number of completions and fracture stimulations required to deplete the reservoir was five. Beyond five, there was little to no economic benefit from increasing the number of fractures. For a reservoir with 50 and 100 ft of net-pay thickness, the economically optimum number of completions was nine and 20, respectively. Thus, the greater the amount of recoverable gas, the more completions that are needed to recover those reserves optimally. Also, doubling the net pay in this example tripled the economic value, and quadrupling the net pay to 100 ft resulted in an eight-fold increase in the discounted net present value. Instantaneous potential (IP), or 30-day rate, for these three cases from 25 to 100 ft of net pay increased linearly with the number of fractures, up to 15 completions/fractures. However, beyond 15, the IP was not linear, indicating that the fractures were interfering with each other within 30 days.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207