MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2187472825

RESERVOIR PRODUCTION BEHAVIOR IN A HYDRODYNAMICALLY CONNECTED FRACTURED CARBONATE, THE MISSISSIPPIAN DEBOLT FORMATION, SIKANNI AREA OF NE BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

2002· article· en· W2187472825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaush Rakhit, Steve W. Burnie, Rakhit Petroleum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gas fieldCarbonateSaturation (graph theory)GeologyHydrology (agriculture)FoothillsNatural gasChemistryGeographyGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mississippian Debolt Formation in the foothills of NE British Columbia traps gas in a number of faulted structures, one of the largest of which is the Sikanni Field, comprised of the Debolt A, B and C Pools. Hydrodynamic analysis in the vicinity of the Sikanni Field showed the presence of a fresh water charged aquifer in communication across major faults underlying the gas pools in the area. Analysis of early pressure data from the Sikanni Field indicated the presence of a common 400 meter gas column. The original gas in place for the C Pool calculated from decline analysis after 3 years of production was 227 BCF, with an assigned recovery factor of 85% for 190 BCF recoverable. To date the C pool has produced nearly 97 BCF but 6 of the 7 wells have watered out with only 43% of the gas recovered. Despite a downward revision of the OGIP to 193 BCF, yielding a 50% recovery factor to date, much of the gas remains unrecoverable. What happened to the remaining gas? Was the pool optimally developed? Could the early understanding of the hydrodynamic setting and pool behavior have pointed us towards a more accurate ultimate recovery factor for the C Pool? This paper will explore possible causes of the low recovery factor for the Sikanni C Pool. Unforeseen reservoir compartmentalization, water coning and a higher than anticipated volume of gas being stranded at residual gas saturation may explain why 50% of the OGIP has been orphaned.

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)0.000
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→