MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047527923 · doi:10.2118/133615-pa

Simplified Forecasting of Tight/Shale-Gas Production in Linear Flow

2012· article· en· W2047527923 on OpenAlexaff
Morteza Nobakht, Louis Mattar, David M. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Tight gasShale gasOil shalePetroleum engineeringGeologyUnconventional oilMechanicsHydraulic fracturingGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper presents a simplified method of production forecasting for tight/shale-gas reservoirs exhibiting extended periods of linear flow, without the use of complex tools (e.g., analytical models or numerical models). The method, which is applicable to hydraulically fractured vertical wells and multifractured horizontal wells, is simple because it relies principally on a plot of inverse rate vs. square root of time, and it is rigorous in that it is based on the theory of linear flow and combines the transient linear-flow period with hyperbolic decline during boundary-dominated flow. The dominant flow regime observed in most tight/shale-gas wells is linear flow, which may continue for several years. This linear flow will be followed by boundary-dominated flow at later times. Therefore, the method proposed in this study is applicable for forecasting production data for these wells because it considers these two important flow regimes. The derivation is presented for a hydraulically fractured well, and this simplified method can be applied both to hydraulically fractured vertical wells and to horizontal wells with multiple fractures. The application of this method to multifractured horizontal wells in the Marcellus and Barnett shale gas is also presented. The method is validated by comparing its results with test cases, which are built using numerical simulation for hydraulically fractured vertical wells. For each case, only the first year of the synthetic production data is then used for the analysis. It is found that there is reasonable agreement between the forecast rates obtained using this method and the numerically simulated rates. Currently, analysis techniques using material-balance time are being used in industry to analyze tight/shale-gas reservoirs. Because material-balance time is actually boundary-dominated flow superposition time, these analyses may show symptoms of boundary-dominated flow even though the reservoir is still in transient flow. The advantages of the forecasting method proposed in this study are that: (1) it is not biased toward any flow regimes because no superposition time functions are used; (2) reliable forecasts can be obtained without using pseudotime--this is an advantage because using pseudotime introduces complexities and an iterative procedure; and (3) the only major unknown is the drainage area.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations55
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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