MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995099162 · doi:10.2523/iptc-17739-ms

A Comparison of North American and International Risks in Unconventional Resource Plays

2014· article· en· W1995099162 on OpenAlex
D. Nathan Meehan

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleUnconventional oilTight oilTight gasPetroleum engineeringShale gasResource (disambiguation)Competitor analysisSource rockCoalGeologyNatural resource economicsMining engineeringHydraulic fracturingBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsPaleontologyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unconventional resources are defined to include coal-bed methane (CBM), tight gas and source rock- (often shale) based reservoirs. Tight gas and CBM have not been "unconventional" in the United States and Canada for more than a decade and are being developed in many countries as more or less conventional plays. Source rock-based plays (shale oil, shale gas) in North America have become widely commercialized and contribute substantially to both gas and hydrocarbon liquid production. Vast quantities of shale resources outside of the United States and Canada have been identified but generally remain at early stages of development. Although large numbers of horizontal, multi-stage hydraulically fractured shale wells have been drilled commercially, such plays remain unconventional for a variety of reasons. Shale plays differ from tight gas, CBM and historically conventional plays for the same reasons. Unlike the other plays whose characteristics that result in success are well known, shale plays only have indicators pointing to success. The reasons for variability in individual well performance for shale plays are poorly known. Methodologies to "derisk" potential plays vary. Mathematical models to predict performance for shale plays are less rigorous and operators often rely on overly simplified approaches. Highly competitive North American markets with scores of well-funded competitors and relatively easy access to land and technology have resulted in rapid evaluation of many shale plays at the cost of a substantial number of underperforming wells. In the study, several plays are presented, showing how quickly derisking occurs, what factors contribute to them and how they impact long-term efficiency. A consistent method for gathering data (seismic, test wells, cores, logs, geomechanical information) is proposed to minimize excess costs and maximize NPV. The approaches to optimize development are applied to shale plays with synthetic properties established on observed heterogeneities but reservoir characteristics for some international shale prospects. The economics are tested with various strategies to illustrate the differences in value obtained.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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