MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092678804 · doi:10.2118/165360-pa

Flow Units: From Conventional to Tight-Gas to Shale-Gas to Tight-Oil to Shale-Oil Reservoirs

2014· article· en· W2092678804 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsOil shaleTight oilPetroleum engineeringGeologyTight gasFossil fuelUnconventional oilPetroleumPermeability (electromagnetism)Shale oilPorosityShale gasFlow (mathematics)PetrologyGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsPaleontologyEngineeringHydraulic fracturingChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Core data from various North American basins with the support of limited amounts of data from other basins around the world have shown in the past that process speed or delivery speed (the ratio of permeability to porosity) provides a continuum between conventional, tight-, and shale-gas reservoirs (Aguilera 2010a). This work shows that the previous observation can be extended to tight-oil and shale-oil reservoirs. The link between the various hydrocarbon fluids is provided by the word “petroleum” in the “total petroleum system (TPS),” which encompasses liquid and gas hydrocarbons found in conventional, tight, and shale reservoirs. Results of the present study lead to distinctive flow units for each type of reservoir that can be linked empirically to gas and oil rates and, under favorable conditions, to production decline. To make the work tractable, the bulk of the data used in this paper has been extracted from published geologic and petroleum-engineering literature. The paper introduces an unrestricted/transient/interlinear transition flow period in a triple-porosity model for evaluating the rate performance of multistage-hydraulically-fractured (MSHF) tight-oil reservoirs. Under ideal conditions, this flow period is recognized by a straight line with a slope of –1.0 on log-log coordinates. However, the slope can change (e.g., to –0.75), depending on reservoir characteristics, as shown with production data from the Cardium and Shaunavon formations in Canada. This interlinear flow period has not been reported previously in the literature because the standard assumption for MSHF reservoirs has been that of a pseudosteady-state transition between the linear flow periods. It is concluded that there is a significant practical potential in the use of process speed as part of the flow-unit characterization of unconventional petroleum reservoirs. There is also potential for the evaluation of production-decline rates by the use of the triple-porosity model presented in this study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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