Preparing for the Tight Gas Steeplechase, Talking to Canadians about Deep, Tight Gas Sand (TGS) Developments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, a number of Basin-Centred, Tight Gas Sands and Shale Gas Exploration Wells have been tested in Australia. Since monetization of the resulting Contingent Resources involves embarking on a multi-year, multi-billion dollar mega-project, most operating companies use a formalized Stage Gate Process to critically review the maturation of the business opportunity. To obtain adequate resources and time to undertake Appraisal Drilling and Field Development Option Assessments, the project must pass through a Stage Gate-1 Review of the Exploration results and scoping-quality economic screening of the potential development concept. Concept generation often relies on ideas obtained from literature reviews and brainstorming, as well as data gathering trips to somewhat analogous operations. This paper summarizes observations from a somewhat disappointing data gathering initiative undertaken in 3Q2015 in Calgary to talk with knowledgeable Canadians about learnings from their Deep Tight Gas Sand Developments. These interviews reconfirmed that many of the field development planning (FDP) issues discussed in the literature and at technical conferences over the last 25 years remain in-play: Significant resources and time should be allocated to the Appraisal TGS plays. Many existing projects initially suffered from inadequate access to properly preserved and representative core materials and/or rotary sidewall cores. A broad ranging assessment of development alternatives and feasibility studies is recommended in Stage 2, before committing to FEED. There are multiple drivers for the use of large well pads with either integrated facilities or proximal facility hubs. This also facilitates fuel substitution and the re-use of fuel gas, frac fluid handling and power lines for other services later in the field's life. Pilot studies and phased developments are desirable to address a wide range of reservoir uncertainties, completion options and artificial lift methods. However, it may be possible to defer some pilots that address Tactical Issues into Stage-5 to increase hydrocarbon capture. Some operators are now revisiting ideas that were popular more than 25 years ago, including the use of non-aqueous frac fluids and/or stable foams. The FDP, pad and completion designs should anticipate both re-fracturing and infill drilling requirements. Much greater attention is now being paid to fracture effectiveness, rather than simply operational effectiveness and CAPEX reduction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".