MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093731160 · doi:10.2118/94859-ms

Decline-Curve Analysis for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs

2005· article· en· W2093731160 on OpenAlexaff
Jane L. Frederick, Mohan Kelkar

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensionless quantityProduction (economics)Constraint (computer-aided design)MechanicsProduction rateField (mathematics)Applied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical optimizationPhysicsEngineeringProcess engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper introduces a new method for analyzing solution-gas production to determine the ultimate recovery of a well or a field. The procedure developed and outlined in this paper requires very little input data and is easily implemented. By modifiying the equations for dimensionless rate and dimensionless cumulative production derived for the single phase model, a new set of equations is developed to approximate the ultimate recovery of a solution-gas well. Using the approximate material balance equation based on numerical results by Vogel1 and the equation for the production rate derived by Fetkovich et al.2,3,4, this new set of dimensionless rate and dimensionless cumulative production equations are derived. Using the relationship between these equations and an iterative calculation procedure, the ultimate recovery for the solution-gas well can be easily determined. All that is needed as input is the producing bottom-hole pressure, the initial pressure, and the oil production data. The method has been validated with twelve simulator cases, six under constant bottom hole pressure production constraint and six under variable bottom hole pressure production constraint. Furthermore, several field cases have been analyzed. The synthetic and field cases validate the procedure. Using the early pseudo-steady state production data in the analysis the results generated by the method are consistent with the actual ultimate recoveries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207