MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2873130540 · doi:10.4236/eng.2018.107027

Importance of Well Spacing and Orientation for Multi-Lateral Pads on Production: Learnings from Production Analysis and Numerical Modelling of the Mannville Coal Measures, South Central Alberta

2018· article· en· W2873130540 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)AnisotropyEngineeringCoalPetroleum engineeringWaste managementChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modelling results from numerical simulations of the Early Cretaceous, Mannville coal measures with anisotropic permeability provide insights into development strategies not readily visualized or otherwise intuitive. The complex relationships between water and gas production, the contribution from multiple coal seams as well as from organic rich shales, and the impact of well interference combined with anisotropic fracture permeability are investigated through a series of numerical simulations of four well-pads (on the corners of a square mile of land with decreasing well spacing from 1, 3, to 4 laterals per pad). After 25 years of production, the two pads with optimally-oriented laterals with respect to the fracture permeability anisotropy produce 61% of the recovered gas for the 1 lateral/pad model, 52% for the 3 laterals/pad model, and 50% for the 4 laterals/pad model. Downspacing has a greater impact on increasing the gas production from pads with the poorly-oriented main laterals than from the pads with the optimally-oriented main laterals. The cumulative gas production at the end of the 25 year history is 4.2% higher for an optimally-oriented pad (pad1) and 1.1× higher for a poorly-oriented pad (pad3) for a model with 4 laterals/pad than 3 laterals/pad and an optimally-oriented pad is 1.1% higher for an optimally-oriented pad and 1.5× higher for a poorly-oriented pad for a model with 3 laterals/pad than 1 lateral/pad. Although downspacing from 3 to 4 laterals/pad has a greater impact on increasing the cumulative gas production from optimally-oriented pads than downspacing from 1 to 3 laterals/pad, the lower impact on poorly-oriented pads results in a lower total increase the cumulative gas production from the four pads. At the end of the 25-year production history, 9.0% more gas is recovered for the 4 lateral/pad model than the 3 lateral/pad model, which predicts 1.2× more gas than the 1 lateral/pad model. The recovered shale gas exceeds the recovered coal gas after ~7 years of production. The higher contribution of produced coal gas predicted due to downspacing results from a higher contribution of recovered gas from the main coal seam, while the contribution from the minor coal seams is lower. Downspacing has a minimal impact on the cumulative water production; after 25 years of production a difference of 1.0% is predicted between models with 4 and 3 laterals/pad and 1.7% between models with 1 and 3 laterals/pad. While downspacing increases the cumulative water production for the poorly-oriented pads (1.1× for 3 to 4 laterals/pad and 1.3× for 3 to 1 lateral/pad after 25 years), the cumulative water production for the optimally-oriented pads is lower over the majority of the production history (after ~4 years and 3.2% lower after 25 years for 3 to 4 laterals/pad and after ~6 months and 1.1× lower after 25 years for 1 to 3 laterals/pad).

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.177 · 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