Proof of concept for gas hydrate production using the depressurization technique, as established by the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik 2007-2008 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific and engineering studies advanced through the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik 2007-2008 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program have successfully established proof of concept that sustained gas production can be achieved by simple depressurization of a gas hydrate reservoir using conventional oil-and-gas drilling, completion, and production methods. This paper reviews the scientific findings that substantiate this claim. These include 1) establishment of a petroleum-system model for the emplacement of a gas hydrate field by migration along vertical faults of thermogenic methane sourced from deeper sedimentary strata, with subsequent trapping as gas hydrate within a regionally extensive structural anticline; 2) quantification of the detailed physical properties (geological, geophysical, geomechanical) of gas hydrate reservoir sands and enclosing sediments; 3) construction and safe operation of a production well using conventional oilfield drilling and completion technologies; and 4) 6 days of continuous gas production by reservoir depressurization, with sustained gas- and water-flow rates averaging about 2000 and 10 m3/d respectively, and peak gas-flow rates in the range of 3500-4000 m3/d . Modestly increasing trends in the gas rate were apparent throughout the stage 2 and stage 3 production periods. Numerical reservoir simulations of the observed short-term gas- and water-production rates at Mallik have been undertaken with some success. We conclude, however, that before field-scale production can be realized there is a need for an improved understanding of the long-term production responses of the Mallik reservoir, which might reasonably be achieved through a future production test of between 6 and 12 months duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".