MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284505332 · doi:10.2118/174998-ms

Production Analysis Of One Shale Gas Reservoir In China

2015· article· en· W2284505332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei Pang, Qiong Wu, Ying He, Juan Du, Tong‐Yi Zhang, Christine Ehlig‐Economides

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shalePetroleum engineeringShale gasGeologyVolumetric flow rateHydraulic fracturingUnconventional oilPetrologyHydrology (agriculture)MechanicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract China is the third country gaining shale gas breakthrough in the world after the United States and Canada. Fuling shale gas play is the most successful shale gas reservoir by far in China with average absolute open flow (AOF) capacity of 400 thousand cubic meters per well and the amount reaches 8 million cubic meters in one year for some wells. However, production rate and pressure transient analysis show quite different flow regimes which may mean that the wells are producing quite differently and stimulating treatment have distinct performance. In this paper, 20 wells in the shale gas reservoir in China are analyzed with production rate and pressure transient data using rate normalized pressure (RNP) and rate normalized pressure derivative (RNP') method. The 20 wells log-log interpretation plots are drawn to diagnose the flow regimes and flow regime sequence. In the log-log plots, nearly half of the wells see unit slop, which indicate boundary dominated flow within 1 to 2 years, so the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) is very small. From production rate data, most producing wells see interference when their neighborhood wells are hydraulic fracturing. Interference imposes great effect on log-log interpretation plots, so interpretation comparison are made with and without using rate and pressure transient data after interference. Because of interference, liquid loading may be a problem for some wells. External source of energy supplying for the shale gas layer is researched by rate and pressure transient interpretation modeling because some wells see external pressure supply. Results show that Fuling shale gas reservoir has unique production performance with production rate keeping nearly constant within 2 years for some wells. Fuling Phase I shale gas wells exhibit 4 different flow regimes with relevant interpretation models categorized by homogenous formation with boundary, dual porosity formation, pressure support, severe liquid producing. Interference with adjacent wells during hydraulic fracturing may occur and cause great effect on rate and pressure transient data interpretation. To the author's knowledge, this is the first time that comprehensively describes shale gas production performance detail in China. 4 different flow regimes with different formation interpretation models within one reservoir block are rarely reported.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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