Comparing geology and well completions to production in the unconventional region of the Cardium Formation (Upper Cretaceous), northwest Pembina field, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Drilling of horizontal wells in the Cardium Formation in the Pembina field has abruptly increased since the successful completion of Bonterra Nexstar 4-25-47-03 W5 (surface-hole location) 1-25-47-03 W5 (bottom-hole location) in 2008. New Cardium Formation wells are targeting thinner lower quality reservoir intervals while implementing a variety of new completion techniques to improve hydrocarbon production. The purpose of this study is to compare reservoir quality, net-pay mapping, and completion techniques to production data to evaluate the successes and failures of geologic characterization and completion strategies. Well logs and routine core-analyses data were used to evaluate reservoir properties and map net-pay thicknesses. Subsequently, production data from 125 horizontal wells were compared based on the following criteria: presence of conglomerate, sandstone density porosity net-pay thickness, wellbore orientation, number of fractured stages, fracture spacing, lateral well length, base fracturing fluid, and average metric tons of proppant per stage. In the unconventional parts of the Pembina field, well-production–based evaluation of net-pay maps and reservoir characterization requires completion techniques to be considered. Conversely, reservoir thickness and quality must be considered to accurately assess the success of different completion techniques. The use of a 6% sandstone density porosity net-pay cutoff can only be shown to be effective in identifying the most productive wells if well completions are considered. Our analyses indicate that wellbore orientation has a limited impact on well performance, whereas decreasing fracture spacings and increasing lateral well length have the most significant impact on well performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".