MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078428890 · doi:10.2118/148867-ms

Using Stochastic Simulation To Quantify Risk and Uncertainty in Shale Gas Prospecting and Development

2011· article· en· W2078428890 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Unconventional Resources Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringUnconventional oilProspectingNatural gasShale gasOil shalePermeability (electromagnetism)Regional geologyTight gasGeologyDrillingHydraulic fracturingEnvironmental scienceMetamorphic petrologyHydrogeologyMining engineeringEngineeringWaste managementGeotechnical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ultra-low permeability shale gas reservoirs have emerged as a significant source of natural gas in North America. Improved drilling, completion and stimulation techniques combined with declining conventional gas reserves have made shale gas a desirable commodity with significant long-term production potential. Despite extensive development and production (particularly in North America), minimal work has been done to develop tools and methodologies for shale gas prospect analysis. Due to the complexity and large extent of unconventional natural gas resources, it is crucial to be able to investigate potential prospects in a methodical manner to determine whether a given prospect has commercial potential and to compare it to other potential prospects. Experience has shown that conventional exploration techniques using deterministic solutions are not suitable for unconventional prospects due to the unique nature of each prospect and the complexity of each reservoir. The most common method for exploiting shale gas reservoirs is through the use of multi-fractured horizontal wells; the resulting well performance, influenced by both the stimulation treatment and complex reservoir attributes, precludes the use of traditional techniques for production data analysis and forecasting. Several new techniques have been developed to improve the quality and efficiency of analysis while accounting for properties that are unique to shale gas (i.e. adsorbed gas in self-sourced reservoirs and nanodarcy level permeability). Also, due to the complexity of shale gas reservoirs, many authors have suggested that deterministic analysis is unsuitable and that probabilistic analysis should be used to quantify the risk and uncertainty associated with shale gas prospects and the associated data. This paper discusses a new tool that was developed specifically for shale gas prospect screening. This tool combines the latest production data analysis and forecasting techniques with a simple, yet rigorous method for stochastically comparing shale gas prospects. The paper discusses the production analysis and rate forecasting techniques used in the tool, as well as the tool development and application. A sample case using simulated data is presented for proof of concept and a discussion is given for extension of the tool for comparison of several potential prospects.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.188 · 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