Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Montney formation of northern Alberta is a very low permeability reservoir with regions of liquid-rich gas production. The reservoir is typically developed using multi-stage fracture horizontal wells with multiple wells per pad. The produced gas ultimately flows into a gathering network that may have both high and low pressure systems. The primary objective of this paper is to present an efficient workflow for preparing and utilizing an integrated gas reservoir / network model of a Montney field as a tool to determine the optimum facilities plan for the field. Pipeline infrastructure planning is needed to accommodate the large amount of drilling that will ultimately support future LNG demands. Optimizing the development is critical, especially during times of low commodity prices. This paper presents a simplified tight gas reservoir modelling workflow, which has proven to be successful in the Montney and other fields. The workflow integrates available technical work on a field into one simplified full-field development planning tool. Basically, for each current and future well, a simple gridded numerical reservoir model is developed that matches the short term flush production and the long term type curve predictions. The wells are then attached to a gathering system model, thus creating a tool for optimization and planning. Type curves alone are not adequate for short term planning because they do not react to changes at the surface. The implemented workflow has proven to be effective for optimizing development such as the sizing and timing of compression and the scheduling of infill activations. It has also been useful for quantifying back-out of existing production upon infill drilling and ensuring that facilities such as pipelines and compressors are properly sized. The timing and impact of switching rapidly declining wells from high pressure to low pressures systems was also considered when optimizing the system. The workflow has allowed for full-field shale gas models to be developed with reasonable model construction times and manageable model running times. The workflow could be applied to other similar fields or formations, such as the Horn River in north-eastern British Columbia or the Duvernay in central Alberta.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".