Horizontal Wells in Western Canada - a Status Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Horizontal drilling has become the most common drilling style in western Canada since its introduction over 25 years ago. Initially, target plays were conventional reservoirs where horizontal length improved the recovery that was limited in vertical wells by reservoir heterogeneity and/or unconventional hydrocarbon quality. More recently, horizontal drilling has also targeted unconventional plays characterized by low reservoir quality where completions are critical. Operators have embraced the horizontal well technology advances, especially when combined with the revolution in multi stage frac'ing. Through 2012 and 2013, more than 4100 horizontal oil wells and more than 900 horizontal gas wells were drilled and brought onstream, annually. Production rates from these wells have topped 1 million boe per day. This paper provides an overview of the most active plays in the WCSB, from a horizontal well perspective. The paper also includes discussions of trends in horizontal well drilling activity, technology and productivity by: –play (location, formation, commodity, new target vs. redevelopment of established pools)–technology (treated horizontal well lengths, frac metrics)–productivity metrics–operator comparisons Further, selected plays are examined in more detail, to get to the heart of this horizontal well technology roll-out.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".