MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047130677 · doi:10.2118/149398-ms

Estimation of Contacted and Original Gas-in-Place for Low Permeability Reservoirs Exhibiting Linear Flow

2011· article· en· W2047130677 on OpenAlexaff
Morteza Nobakht, Christopher R. Clarkson

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Days · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersConocoPhillips
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringMaterial balanceHydraulic fracturingFlow (mathematics)GeologyBoundary value problemRelative permeabilityMechanicsSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringChemistryPhysicsEngineeringProcess engineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent advances in drilling and completion technology have allowed commercial exploitation of ultra-low permeability gas reservoirs. Horizontal wells that have been stimulated through multiple hydraulic-fracturing stages are the most popular method for exploitation. Due to the extremely low permeability of these reservoirs, boundary-dominated flow may not be reached for a significant period of time making estimation of original gas-in-place (OGIP) difficult. In these reservoirs, it is important to estimate contacted gas-in-place (CGIP), which is some fraction of OGIP, at any point in time. One of the most popular methods for estimating OGIP in conventional reservoirs is flowing material balance (FMB), which is based on the assumption of boundary-dominated flow. However, this method has been used in the literature to estimate CGIP when dealing with transient data. In this paper, we test the applicability of the traditional FMB plot for calculating CGIP in low-permeability systems. It is found that even when dealing with a gas reservoir that is depleted significantly, FMB underestimates the total OGIP. It is also found that using FMB alone can result in misleading interpretations. For example, the FMB plotting method makes the data look like boundary-dominated flow, whereas other diagnostic tools do not indicate boundary-dominated flow. This means that one can misinterpret the gas-in-place from FMB as total OGIP, which consequently affects the reservoir characterization and reserves evaluation. Finally, we investigated whether using a material balance pseudo-time calculated using the average pressure in the region of investigation, as oppose to average reservoir pressure, will correct underestimating OGIP for the case that the reservoir is significantly depleted. This study is of practical interest for determining how much of the reservoir is contacted at each stage of flow of a multi-fractured horizontal well.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAll DaysSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207