MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147801723 · doi:10.2118/149005-ms

Production Analysis of Western Canadian Unconventional Light Oil Plays

2011· article· en· W2147801723 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. R. Clarkson, Per Kent Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Unconventional Resources Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersTexas A and M University
KeywordsTight oilPetroleum engineeringUnconventional oilOil in placeSource rockLight crude oilOil shalePetrophysicsGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Shale oilFossil fuelPetrologyEnvironmental sciencePetroleumChemistryStructural basinPaleontologyPorosityGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unconventional low-permeability (tight) light oil reservoirs have emerged as a significant source of oil supply in North America. As with unconventional gas reservoirs, these low-permeability oil plays exhibit a wide variety of reservoir characteristics, and consequently well-performance profiles. Further, different drilling and completion strategies are used to exploit them. In this work, we suggest that a categorization analogous to that used for unconventional gas reservoirs (i.e. based on reservoir/fluid properties) be used for unconventional light oil reservoirs because of the significant difference in reservoir and production characteristics observed to date in Western Canada. We propose the term "Unconventional Light Oil" (ULO) to capture the spectrum of play types and to distinguish them from unconventional heavy (high viscosity) oil plays. We further propose the following categories of ULO, which can be used as a practical guide for exploration and development: "Halo Oil" – light oil plays where the source ≠ the reservoir, and matrix permeability is relatively high (> 0.1 md) compared to the other categories. These plays represent portions of conventional light oil pools that do not meet traditional petrophysical cutoffs and pay criteria, and may be clastics or carbonates."Tight Oil" – light oil plays where the source ≠ the reservoir, and matrix permeability is low (< 0.1 md). These plays are analogous to tight gas plays and may be clastics or carbonates."Shale Oil" – light oil plays where the source = the reservoir, matrix permeability is very low, and organic matter content may be high. These plays are analogous to shale gas plays. We note that for all three categories, modern completion (ex. horizontal wells) and stimulation methods (hydraulic fracturing) are required to commercially produce oil. We further note that the differences between these play types and their gas counterparts are not strictly related to fluid PVT differences. In this work, we examine, using modern rate-transient analysis methods, differences in production characteristics of three ULO play types in Western Canada, and infer the primary controls on production performance in each. As expected, there are significant differences related to reservoir type and completion strategy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations122
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Unconventional Resources ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207