Multiwell Analysis of Multifractured Horizontal Wells in Tight/Shale Gas Reservoirs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shale gas reservoirs have become a significant source of gas supply in North America owing to the advancement of drilling and stimulation techniques. Long horizontal wells completed with multiple-fracturing stages (MFHW) are the most popular method for exploiting shale gas reservoirs today and therefore, development of analysis methods for analyzing production data from these wells has gained tremendous attention in the last decade. The analysis methods developed so far are aimed to obtain understanding of fracture length, fracture conductivity, stimulated reservoir volume (SRV), contacted gas-in-place and other information for a MFHW being analyzed. Although single well analysis methods are of tremendous value, the industry also needs analysis methods for analyzing a group of MFHWs. In this paper, analysis methods developed for single well analysis of MFHWs are extended to analyze a group of MFHWs. These analysis methods are proved to be very useful for cases that adjacent wells are in communication (ex. fracturing one well affected the production of the adjacent wells). It is shown how these methods help engineers to diagnose and characterize the communication between MFHWs and use the results to optimize the size of frac job and spacing between horizontal wells in tight/shale gas plays.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it