MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034922092 · doi:10.2118/132155-ms

Analysis of Production Data for 2007/2008 Mallik Gas Hydrate Production Tests in Canada

2010· article· en· W2034922092 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingPetroleum engineeringWellheadCabin pressurizationMethaneDrawdown (hydrology)AquiferEnvironmental scienceHydrateClathrate hydrateVolumetric flow rateGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGroundwaterMaterials scienceChemistryMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The methane hydrate (MH) production tests were conducted using the depressurization method in the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik production program in April 2007 and in March 2008. In addition to attaining the first and the only successful methane gas production to the surface from a MH reservoir by depressurization in the world, various data such as wellhead/bottomhole pressure, temperature, gas and water flow rates and the temperature along the casing measured by Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) systems were acquired during these tests. The flow rates of gas and water from the reservoir sand face were then estimated by the comprehensive analysis of these data. This paper clarifies the details of the estimation of gas and water flow rates based on these data, for the first time after the 2008 winter test. In 2007, a certain amount of gas and water were produced from a 12 m perforation interval in one of the major MH reservoirs at the Mallik site in Canada, by reducing the bottomhole pressure down to about 7 MPa. However, because of the irregular (on-off) pumping operations due probably to the excessive sand production, the produced gas was not directly delivered to the surface via the tubing, but was accumulated at the top of the casing. Hence, the gas production rate was calculated based on the continuously monitored bottomhole and casing head pressure. Since the produced water was injected into the aquifer located below the MH reservoir, it was impossible to directly measure the water pumping rate. The pumping rate and water production rates were accurately estimated by matching the bottomhole temperature through the numerical simulation using a wellbore model. In 2008, much larger and longer gas production was accomplished with a stepwise reduction of the bottomhole pressure down to about 4.5 MPa, preventing sands from flowing into the wellbore by the screen. In this test, both the gas and water were delivered to the surface, which enables the estimation of the gas and water flow rates from the reservoir sand face as well as liquid level in casing based on the monitored parameters. Investigating the production performances thus estimated, it was inferred what really happened in the reservoir during the tests. These insights must be beneficial for future exploration and development planning for MH resources.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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