MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2025794110 · doi:10.2118/2000-029

Aquifer Influx Modelling for Gas Reservoirs

2000· article· en· W2025794110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henning Lies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferPetroleum engineeringGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringGroundwater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aquifer water influx is an important mechanism which effects the performance of natural gas reservoirs. The influx of water has serious consequences in the estimation of gas reserves through material balance and in the prediction of future pressures. The effect of water influx from either a finite or infinite aquifer always exists to some extent, however these effects are not always recognized. Methods of modeling water influx include the Hurst modified steady-state method, and various unsteady state methods such as those of van Everdingen-Hurst, and Carter-Tracy. More recently, the four methods introduced by Leung for finite and infinite aquifers provide relatively simple models to use with substantial improvements in accuracy and efficiency over the previous methods. Using the methods introduced by Leung, combined with the volumetric's of the gas reservoir, aquifer parameters such as size, total compressibility, influx angle, permeability, porosity and thickness can be determined. With adequate pressure data, the models converge to a unique solution for all aquifer parameters. The development of the aquifer influx models was the result of the need to better understand the behavior of the McMurray aquifer system in north east Alberta. The 7-5- 81-6W4M well is used as an example, though the application of the models can be extended to any gas reservoir. P/Z V. CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION PLOTS The computation of the initial gas-in-place for constant volume reservoir requires the following data:Initial reservoir pressureCumulative gas volumeStabilized shut-in reservoir pressuresGas deviation factor Although this method is currently used, it is not applicable to water-drive gas reservoirs. With pressure reduction, when water enters the space occupied by the gas, the pressures are maintained in part depending on the nature of the water drive. AQUIFER SUPPORT Pressure support occurs due to a variety of mechanisms - including an infinite acting aquifer, unsteady state finite aquifer, shale water influx, water expansion and rock compressibility/compaction. Through the analysis of DSTs, AOFs, Logs, pressure and production data, the mechanism and future performance of the aquifer can be forecast. P/Z plots of gas pools attached to a medium to slowly responding aquifers usually follow the straight line of a depletion drive reservoir and then gradually rise above it. This is shown in Figure-1. Extrapolation of the P/Z will overestimate the gas-inplace. The gas wells water out as the true gas-in-place is approached and while the reservoir pressure remains relatively high (ie. 50% of original reservoir pressure). The P/Z plot for gas pools influenced by strong aquifers can initially follow a straight line and looks similar to a depletion gas drive reservoir, as long as constant gas production rates are maintained. The extrapolation of the P/Z plot will severely overestimate the gas-in-place in these cases. Again, these gas wells water out as the true gas-in-place is approached and the reservoir pressure as before remains relatively high (ie. ∼75% of original reservoir pressure).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum Conference→Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→