MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587396341 · doi:10.2118/185052-ms

Multi-Well, Multi-Phase Flowing Material Balance

2017· article· en· W2587396341 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Unconventional Resources Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterial balancePetroleum engineeringFlow (mathematics)Phase (matter)Production (economics)Fossil fuelReservoir engineeringWater injection (oil production)Two-phase flowEnhanced oil recoveryEnvironmental scienceGeologyMechanicsProcess engineeringChemistryPetroleumEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flowing material balance (FMB) analysis is a practical method for determining original hydrocarbon volumes in-place. It is attractive because it enables performing material balance calculations without having to shut-in wells to obtain estimates of reservoir pressure. However, with some exceptions, its application is limited to single-phase oil and/or gas reservoirs over limited pressure ranges during depletion. In unconventional reservoirs, reservoir and/or production complexities may further restrict FMB usage. Among these complexities are significant production/injection of water, production resulting in higher Gas-Oil-Ratios and pressure drawdowns, geomechanical effects, and multi-well production effects. As a result, application of the conventional FMB to unconventional reservoirs may lead to significant errors in hydrocarbons-in-place estimation. This paper first discusses the application of conventional FMB to the analysis of single or multi-phase flow in single or multi-well scenarios, and then provides a new, comprehensive version of the FMB to address the above-mentioned complications. For the new FMB, pseudo-pressure is used to account for two-phase oil and gas flow. In addition, by using a general material balance equation, water production/injection and multi-well effects are included in the analysis. The new FMB analysis approach is validated by comparing results against numerical simulation of multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs). These comparisons demonstrate that, not only gas production, but also water production/injection, can have a significant effect on the calculated original in-place hydrocarbon volumes. The new FMB analysis approach provided herein successfully accounts for all flowing phases in the reservoir, and is demonstrated to be applicable for multi-well scenarios. The methodology presented in this paper maintains the simplicity of FMB, yet accounts for multi-phase flow and multi-well complications. The developed FMB and the presented approach can be used by reservoir engineers to reasonably determine the original volumes of hydrocarbons in-place in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.253 · 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