Increasing confidence in estimating stimulated reservoir volume by integrating RTA and microseismic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rate Transient Analysis (RTA) and microseismic monitoring are gaining momentum in modelling Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) in Multi-Frac Horizontal Wells (MFHWs) in unconventional reservoirs. From a behavioural perspective, RTA uses history matching and production data analysis to estimate fracture volume and productivity, and microseismic analysis maps frack-ing-induced micro-earthquakes to calibrate the fracture network from a spatiotemporal point of view. Defining the concepts of normalized rate, material balance time and pseudo-time, dynamic drainage volume, together with convolution, deconvolution and analytical models, make RTA a powerful and computationally efficient tool for modelling MFHWs (Blasingame et al., 1991; Agarwal et al., 1998, Mattar and Anderson, 2003). Poe (2005) proposed a rate-transient analysis method for evaluating the performance of wells with limited pressure data using the superposition theory and dimensionless parameters. Soliman and Adams (2010) estimated fracture properties by applying Flow Regime Identification (FRI) plots to early production data, followed by using analytical models derived for each distinct flow regime. Kuchuk et al. (2016) calibrated reservoir models by history-matching the transient flow rate and pressure measurements. Brown (2009), Stalgorova and Mattar (2012a, 2012b), Deng et al. (2015), and Yuan et al. (2015) divided the reservoir into a series of linear flow regions and derived analytical pressure transient models from the pressure diffusion equation, not only to confirm the validity of the identification, characterization and diagnostic analyses but also to provide production forecasts and carry out optimization studies. Clarkson et al. (2015) successfully applied RTA analytical and semi-analytical modelling techniques to a gas condensate MFHW in a Western Canadian Basin, highlighting the fact that building a predictive understanding of drainage volume dynamics is best started with physics-based analytical models rather than multi-phase numerical simulations. This is particularly important in unconventional reservoirs where the complex, small-scale physics and rock-fluid interactions significantly hinder gathering enough measurements to support the numerically added complexities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".