MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065743207 · doi:10.2118/78969-ms

Horizontal Wells Pressure Build Up Analysis in Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt

2002· article· en· W2065743207 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Gabriela Briceno, L. E. Summers, O. J. Quijada

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental geologyGeologyDirectional drillingEconomic geologyRegional geologyGeobiologyDrillingFormation evaluationPalaeogeographyFluvialPetroleumOil fieldHydrogeologyGeotechnical engineeringStructural basinTelmatologyEngineeringGeomorphologyVolcanismTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The innovative application of horizontal drilling technology has made the Petrozuata development project in Venezuela a great success. Petrozuata is the first of four strategic associations implementing an integrated development in the Faja trend, which contains 1.36 trillion barrels of oil in place and is one of the world’s largest heavy oil accumulations. The joint venture of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) and Conoco, Inc., drilled 101 single lateral and 140 multi-lateral horizontal wells in the Zuata Field from 1998 to 2001 as a means of delivering production rates of up to 3000 BOPD per well from reservoir sands of 8° to 10° API oil. Well test interpretation and analysis techniques have been applied to both single and multi-lateral horizontal wells. This paper summarizes the methodology developed to analyze pressure build up (PBU) tests in the single lateral horizontal wells and recent experiences with the application of state of art PBU analysis techniques in the Zuata field wells. Because of the geological complexity of the fluvial-deltaic reservoir sands and the peculiar transient pressure behavior, it was necessary to integrate analytical techniques that identified the various flow regimes with numerical analysis that further quantified the analytic interpretation. The integrated approach allowed for improvements in the conventional analytical interpretation and provided a basis of incorporating refinements in the reservoir description when combined with geological and petrophysical data and interpretation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→