MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024097261 · doi:10.2118/1112-0138-jpt

Investigating Liquid Loading in Tight Horizontal Gas Wells

2012· article· en· W2024097261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis Denney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySaturation (graph theory)Submarine pipelineMultiphase flowOil shalePetroleum engineeringSubseaDirectional drillingPorosityPermeability (electromagnetism)DrillingGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 149477, ’Investigation of Liquid Loading in Tight Horizontal Gas Wells With a Transient-Multiphase-Flow Simulator,’ by Donald F.B. Jackson, SPE, SPT Group, and Claudio J.J. Virues, SPE, and David Sask, SPE, Encana, prepared for the 2011 Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15-17 November. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Liquid loading occurs in gas wells when production declines to a rate that is insufficient to lift the associated liquids to the surface. Liquid holdup in the horizontal section may impair production before liquid loading in the production tubing becomes evident. Holdup in the horizontal section can lead to slug flow at the tubing and to early onset of liquid loading in the tubing. The results from a transient-multiphase-flow model were found to be consistent with data acquired from video logging. Sensitivity analyses were performed with several normalized trajectories. Introduction Technology applied in conventional reservoirs in offshore horizontal wells can be applied successfully in onshore horizontal wells in unconventional reservoirs. The Jean Marie formation is an Upper Devonian carbonate platform between two thick shale layers in the Greater Sierra area, approximately 90 km east of Fort Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. The formation has low porosity (averaging 6%), low water saturation (averaging 20%), and low permeability (less than 1 md to air). Formation depth ranges from 600 to 1500 m subsea—1000- to 1900-m true vertical depth. The formation is entirely gas saturated with a dry sweet gas (95% methane) and is variably underpressured, with initial reservoir pressures of 6 to 15 MPa. The horizontal wells are drilled underbalanced to limit formation damage. Fig. 1 shows a typical well completion with 177.8-mm production casing set at the top of the Jean Marie formation. Gas is produced from the openhole portion of the completion. While drilling horizontally through the Jean Marie formation, the well trajectory is steered on the basis of gas-rate-while-drilling (RWD) data. The geologists maneuver up and down in inclination until a good permeability streak is indicated by a spike in flow rate from the RWD data. After reaching target depth, tubing (typically 60.3 mm) is installed and the well is brought on production. Typical gas- production rates for Jean Marie wells decline from an initial rate of 56×103 m3/d to 14×103 m3/d after 12 months and to 10×103 m3/d after 36 months.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207