Reservoir Engineering for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs: What Do We Have to Consider?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The reservoir engineer involved in the development of unconventional gas reservoirs (UGRs) is required to integrate a vast amount of data from disparate sources, and to be familiar with the data collection and assessment. There has been a rapid evolution of technology used to characterize UGR reservoir and hydraulic fracture properties, and there currently are few standardized procedures to be used as guidance. Therefore, more than ever, the reservoir engineer is required to question data sources and have an intimate knowledge of evaluation procedures. We propose a workflow for the optimization of UGR field development to guide discussion of the reservoir engineer's role in the process. Critical issues related to reservoir sample and log analysis, rate-transient and production data analysis, hydraulic and reservoir modeling and economic analysis are raised. Further, we have provided illustrations of each step of the workflow using tight gas examples. Our intent is to provide some guidance for best practices. In addition to reviewing existing methods for reservoir characterization, we introduce new methods for measuring pore size distribution (small-angle neutron scattering), evaluating core-scale heterogeneity, log-core calibration, evaluating core/log data trends to assist with scale-up of core data, and modeling flow-back of reservoir fluids immediately after well stimulation. Our focus in this manuscript is on tight and shale gas reservoirs; reservoir characterization methods for coalbed methane reservoirs have recently been discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it