Horizontal and Multi-Lateral Wells: Performance Analysis-An Art or a Science?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several thousand horizontal wells have been drilled around the globe in the last ten years. In Canada alone, horizontal wells have been used in a variety of applications in almost all oil producing provinces. Several hundred multi-lateral wells have also been drilled. There are over 700 multi-lateral wells in Saskatchewan alone. Similarly, underbalanced drilling and coiled tubing drilling are also commonly used. This drilling driven oilfield revolution has made a significant impact on oilfield development. In any oilfield project one is interested in four questions, namely expected well rates, well reserves, well cost, and probability of commercial success or risk factors. Although there are horizontal well projects where commercial success rates are very high, overall commercial success of the technology in North America is about 65%. This is especially of concern since most of the horizontal wells are infill wells. Understanding these successes and failures requires an analysis of well performance. In this article, practical difficulties and solutions for well performance analysis are discussed. Introduction Figure 1 shows schematic diagrams of different horizontal and multi-lateral well configurations. FIGURE 1: Typical horizontal well and multi-lateral well profiles. (Available in full paper) The figure shows that due to advances in drilling technology, it is possible to drill wells with different geometric configurations. Most of the Canadian wells to-date is single lateral horizontal wells. It is becoming common to drill 1,000 to 1,500 m long horizontal wells. Moreover, most of the wells drilled have medium radius build-rates and are completed either with a slotted liner or an open-hole completion. Multi-laterals have been used effectively to improve production as well as injection rate. The majority of the multi-laterals in North America are either open hole or one of the laterals is completed with a slotted liner. With such a completion, it is difficult to measure production from each lateral. Moreover, it is not easy to stimulate each lateral effectively. A coiled tubing may be necessary to enter each lateral independently, which of course adds to the stimulation cost. In some cases, even with coiled tubing it may not be possible to access each leg of the well. In Canada, the major success of horizontal wells has been in producing gas zones, thin heavy oil columns, water-floods, and miscible floods in carbonates. Although many papers are written on SAGD, the field projects are limited to a dozen or so. Only a few have declared that they are commercially successful. One ofthem is the Celtic field in Saskatchewan where a horizontal well produces at 100 m3 /d with oil-stream ratio of about two. Flow Behaviour A horizontal well, similar to a vertical well, when put on production will initially go through a transient flow followed by a well stabilization or a stabilized flow(1). On a log-log plot of rate vs. time, this is observed as two different straight lines with two distinct slopes (Figure 2). Many times, this is also observed on the semi-log plot of rate vs. time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".