MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000517359 · doi:10.2118/155442-ms

An Overview of Emerging Technologies and Innovations for Tight Gas Reservoir Development

2012· article· en· W2000517359 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.

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTight oilGlobeTight gasFossil fuelBusinessEmerging technologiesPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringHydraulic fracturingWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As oil prices are significantly increasing in the current decade, oil producers become more and more interested to economically produce natural gas from tight reservoirs. Tight gas reserves represent a huge source of energy that can last for decades. However, the major challenge oil company faces is to find technological solution for economical development and production from such tight reserves. This paper presents a global patent landscape on tight gas recovery technologies. The paper considers the granted patents and patent applications filed from 1990 through today across the globe. The landscape study identifies key patent filers, independent inventores, Universities, and research labs in the area of tight gas recovery technologies. It also identifies different stimulation technologies associated with different patent assignees. Patent lieterature has been used to obtain information on solutions to problems in tight gas recovery areas, such as sweetspot identification, damage minimization, water blocking, and filtrate invasion. Saudi Aramco is seeking suitable partners in recoving tight gas from its vast reserves. The patent filing activity was found to be on an upward trend with filings having increased through the 2000s as compared to during the 1990s. The major contribution to this is from major oil field service providers, such as Schlumberger, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, with a cumulative share in excess of 50%. Independent inventors (patents which are not assigned to any company/research institute) constituted more than 12% of the total filings. Not to be left behind, academic institutes are also actively filing patents in this area. There are a considerable number of patents filed with joint assignee names, which could be identified through research collaborations, such as Schlumberger and Prad Research and Development; 3M and the University of Texas; MIT and BP. The United States, followed by Canada and the European Patent Office (EPO), have a maximum number of patent filings while China is the only Asian country to file patents on tight gas formations. Over 50% of the patents filed have been made through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) route indicating the assignees' intent to practice these technologies globally. Schlumberger is a key player in the tight gas recovery area focusing on hydraulic fracturing and slick water fracturing. The patents disclosed by these companies disclose acid fracturing in addition to hydraulic fracturing. ExxonMobil has also filed a patent each on multistage fracturing and thermal fracturing, in addition to hydraulic fracturing. Halliburton and Baker Hughes also focus mainly on hydraulic fracturing. Baker Hughes has one patent on slick water fracturing and one patent on acid fracturing, while Halliburton has one patent on foam fracturing.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.268 · 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