MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003356598 · doi:10.2118/141104-pa

The Potential Pitfalls of Using North American Tight and Shale Gas Development Techniques in the North African and Middle Eastern Environments

2012· article· en· W2003356598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexis Martín

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Economics & Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle EastShale gasOil shaleUnconventional oilTight gasNatural gasTight oilBusinessPetroleum engineeringGeologyNatural resource economicsEconomyHydraulic fracturingGeographyEconomicsEngineeringPaleontologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Many companies operating in the upstream gas industry in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are interested in the outstanding technical successes achieved by the US and Canadian tight and shale gas producers. It seems almost miraculous that companies can obtain significant gas-production rates from rocks with permeabilities measured in nanodarcies—so low, in fact, that permeability becomes almost impossible to assess accurately. In North America, the main factor now constraining shale gas production is the historically low gas price. Operators in MENA, who are accustomed to working in formations with permeabilities five or six orders of magnitude greater, have realized recently that they may be sitting on top of huge untapped gas reserves that had been evaluated previously as subeconomic. In recent years, several major MENA-based operating companies have bought interests in US and Canadian tight and shale gas operations, with the objective of acquiring experience and technology that can be applied to similar formations in MENA and elsewhere. This seems to be an obvious and wise strategy; unfortunately, the problem is not the strategy, it is the tactics ("the devil is in the details"). In many instances, operating companies have been disappointed to discover that they cannot simply transplant an American-style development into MENA. Similarly, many North American independents have viewed the untapped low-permeability gas reserves of MENA as a natural territory for expansion, only to find themselves frustrated at almost every turn. This paper seeks to highlight the potential pitfalls of trying to use North American development techniques in MENA, and to promote strategies and tactics that are more suitable. In addition, this paper will suggest structural changes that could have a significant positive impact on low-permeability gas developments in MENA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Economics & ManagementSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207