MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2927031690 · doi:10.2118/195241-ms

Well Spacing and Landing Zone Optimization to Improve Development Strategy - A Case Study from the Stack

2019· article· en· W2927031690 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Karam, Junjie Yang, Kristian Cozyris, Tim Stephenson, Xiaoxuan An, C Lee Shin Jung, Jongyoung Jun, Hyungseok Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringBoreholeFracture (geology)Hydraulic fracturingGeotechnical engineeringPetrologyMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sooner Trend Anadarko Canadian Kingfisher, also known as STACK, is a booming unconventional oil play in North America. As one of the main features that makes the asset profitable, multiple targeting benches raise a challenge of optimization. Well-developed natural fracture system brings in another level of complexity to estimate well spacing. This study introduces an integrated workflow to better understand the fluid flow mechanism in the reservoir and optimize development strategy. From borehole image log, natural fracture orientation and density was interpreted and statistically populated into geologic model along with petrophysical properties. To account for productivity enhancement due to natural fractures, enhanced permeability was embedded into the simulation model according to the distribution of discrete fracture network. After being history matched, the reservoir model was used to test the sensitivity on well spacing, landing zone and hydraulic fracturing pump schedule. Both infill drilling program and green field development scenarios were tested and compared to optimize our field development study. Production history match indicates that natural fractures serve as fluid flow conduit and contribute significantly to the production in Osage. Pressure transient observation shows a similar reservoir behavior in the Osage as opposed to the Woodford. Multiple wells experience productivity reduction over longer production history, indicating near-field damage (such as scaling) and/or far-field damage (such as fracture closure). Introduction of skin factor and pressure dependent permeability captured the trend on productivity behavior in the history match. In addition, the simulation study shed light on the hydraulic fracture geometry that provides direct insight on well spacing and landing zone analyses. Results from the infill drilling program show that staggered design with 3 Osage and 4 Woodford wells per section yields the higher oil recovery. However, using the greenfield sensitivities, and depending on the pumping schedule, hydraulic fractures from Woodford wells show upward growth, draining both formations effectively even without Osage wells. This study provides valuable information about the development strategy in STACK unconventional resources, particularly for scenarios with natural fracture system and multiple targeting zones. The simulation workflow considers well interference in both horizontal and vertical directions simultaneously to optimize oil recovery and reduce operational cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→