Assessment and Development of the Dry Horseshoe Canyon CBM Play in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper discusses how the Horseshoe Canyon coalbed methane (CBM) play in Western Canada was converted from an under-explored, non-commercial resource to a major commercial play through the application and modification of technology and analysis techniques from other basins, and how this play is being developed today. As of December 2004, production from the Horseshoe Canyon CBM play is estimated to be over 100 MMscfd of gas, with future production expected to grow significantly. The first commercial developments were completed in 2003 and 2004, and drilling is increasing and expected to exceed 3,000 wells per year in 2005.1 The Horseshoe Canyon CBM play covers a large geographic area of 200 miles by 50 miles, and exists in a large, complex vertical section with numerous coal, sand, silt, shale and mudstone layers. In addition, the play is naturally under-pressured, and the coal beds are mostly dry. Because of these complex and unique characteristics, assessment of commercial viability and development optimization can be confusing and only applicable over small parts of the play. MGV Energy, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ft. Worth-based Quicksilver Resources, Inc.) and its initial joint venture (JV) partner, PanCanadian Petroleum Limited (now EnCana Corp.), discovered the techniques to achieve commerciality and pioneered many of the practices used by industry today for Horseshoe Canyon CBM development. In this paper, we discuss identification of the reservoir opportunity, including data acquisition and analysis. We describe geologic and reservoir models, and production forecasting methods. We also cover completion and production practices, spacing optimization and reserves estimation procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".