Geologic Controls on Gas Production and Hydraulic-Fracturing Flowback in Tight Gas Sandstones of the Late Jurassic Monteith Formation, Deep Basin, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A comparison of rock properties integrated with production performance and hydraulic-fracturing flowback (FB) of the uppermost lithostratigraphic “Monteith A” and the lowermost portion “Monteith C” of the Monteith Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) in Alberta is carried out with the use of existing producing gas wells. The analyses are targeted to understand the major geologic controls that differentiate the two tight gas sandstone reservoirs. This study consists of basic analytical tools available for geological characterization of tight gas reservoirs that is based on the identification and comparison of different rock types such as depositional, petrographic, and hydraulic for each lithostratigraphic unit of the Monteith Formation. As these low-matrix-permeability sandstone reservoirs were subjected to intense post-depositional diagenesis, a comparison of the various rock types allows the generation of more-accurate reservoir description, and a better understanding of the key geologic characteristics that control gas-production potential and possible impact on hydraulic-fracturing FB. Well performance and FB were the focus of many previous simulation and geochemical studies. In contrast, we find that an adequate understanding of the rocks hosting hydraulic fractures is a necessary complement to those studies for estimating FB times. This understanding was lacking in some previous studies. As a result, a new method is proposed on the basis of a crossplot of cumulative gas production vs. square root of time for estimating FB time. It is concluded that the “Monteith A” unit has better rock quality than the “Monteith C” unit because of less-heterogeneous reservoir geometry, less-complex mineralogical composition, and larger pore-throat apertures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".