MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065991851 · doi:10.2118/130066-pa

Well Testing of Tight Gas Reservoirs

2009· article· en· W2065991851 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Jahabani, Roberto Aguilera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTight gasPetroleum engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)Fossil fuelHydraulic fracturingGeologyNatural gas fieldTight oilUnconventional oilNatural gasEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A tight gas reservoir is commonly defined as a reservoir having less than 0.1 milliDarcies permeability. Because of the very low permeability, hydraulic fracturing is usually carried out in efforts to establish commercial production. There are several basic concepts and field cases of different well tests in tight gas reservoirs in the literature. In this paper, we gather information and provide a guide to some of the most important tests. Generally because of low permeability, a well will not flow initially at measurable rates and conventional well testing cannot be applied. We review procedures for design of pre- and postfracture tests in single and dual porosity reservoirs. The prefracture test permits estimating preliminary values of reservoir permeability and initial pressure. The post-fracture test provides data for estimating fracture half length and conductivity. We also review the application of convolution/deconvolution methods to analyze well tests with significant wellbore storage. Because of economic and environmental reasons, short duration procedures are preferred. However, although effective in many instances, these methods also have their own limitations. Introduction Unconventional reservoirs (tight gas, coal bed methane, shales gas and gas hydrates) will be an important pat of the global energy mix for decades to come. Large reserves, long-term potential, costs and gas prices and some other factors account for the great influence of these resources on the future of energy. There is no formal definition for "tight gas." A commonly used definition, describes tight gas reservoirs as those having permeabilities smaller than 0.1 milliDarcies. Well testing is generally done as an aid to estimate gas in-place and recoverable volumes. Initial pressure (pi) is a critical parameter not only for estimating gas in-place, but also for determining how much field development is required and whether or not the field is overdeveloped. In addition to pi, well testing provides an estimate of permeability and skin. A problem associated with well testing in tight gas sands is that usually long times are required to reach radial flow, due to their extremely low permeabilities. Therefore, conventional well tests cannot be applied to these reservoirs. Because of initial uneconomic rates, fracturing is usually required. Lee(2) has suggested procedures for pre- and post-fracture tests design. In order to have measurable gas rates for pre-frac testing, often a breakdown with acid, KCl water or N2 is necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207