MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033448160 · doi:10.2118/0620-0024-jpt

The Great Shale Shut-In Uncharted Territory for Technical Experts

2020· article· en· W3033448160 on OpenAlex
Trent Jacobs

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShut downOil shaleGeologyMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facing crippling crude prices and a historic supply overhang, the once-booming US shale sector is for the first time being forced to shut in thousands of wells across its most prolific tight-oil basins. Accurate production data lag by months in the US, but analysts are reporting onshore shut-in for early May to be somewhere between 100,000 to 400,000 B/D. The largest cuts announced so far come from ConocoPhillips which said in addition to its Canadian oil sands projects that it is shutting in nearly the all of its US onshore position - some 2,400 wells, representing about 165,000 B/D. A projection from commodity researchers at JP Morgan Chase suggests as others follow suit these curtailments may reach 1.5 million B/D by June. The business driver behind the so-far uncoordinated effort is crystal clear. Much less so is how the development will play out when prices bounce back up and the wells are turned back on. That part is a subsurface mystery. A new report by Wood Mackenzie published in April summarizes several factors shale producers are dealing with as they undertake painful but necessary shut-in campaigns. The chief risk listed for subsurface considerations was reservoir damage caused by a loss of relative permeability. “Routine short-term shut ins - days to weeks - for maintenance or ‘frac hit’ avoidance seem to cause few reservoir problems,” the report reads. “But wide-spread shut in of tight-oil horizontal wells is rare, so the long-term reservoir response is uncertain.” As the situation unfolds, many in the petroleum engineering community have taken to social media and online SPE forums to ask practical questions about how best to shut in wells, which ones to shut in, and how to restart them again. Some of the answers hinge on how long the shut-ins are meant to last; 2 months or 6 months could make a big difference. “I don’t think anyone really knows for sure what will happen,” said Eric Gagen, who has spent more than a decade restoring shut-in wells offshore and in shale plays. The petroleum engineer served as a technical manager at a coiled-tubing company until industrywide staff reductions began this month. He said long-term shut-ins on the order of several months could introduce a range of issues that span surface equipment operations to “unexpected” downhole chemical reactions. At a minimum, Gagen said operators shutting in for months should expect to see significantly higher water cuts upon restart. In most tight-rock reservoirs, especially those that are oil-wet, water becomes more mobilized than oil over time “and shut-in wells have a tendency to produce even more water as they are put back on production.” Undulating wellbores - a common feature of horizontal wells - may exacerbate this issue. In the worst of outcomes, a water-loaded well produces such an excess of water that remediation efforts stop making economic sense. At that point, the well is a candidate for a plug-and-abandonment operation.

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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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