MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172374831 · doi:10.3997/1365-2397.2019028

Increasing confidence in estimating stimulated reservoir volume by integrating RTA and microseismic analysis

2019· article· en· W3172374831 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.

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

VenueFirst Break · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismDeconvolutionGeologyDimensionless quantitySuperposition principleReservoir modelingVolumetric flow rateVolume (thermodynamics)MechanicsPetroleum engineeringMathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsSeismologyMathematical analysisThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.231 · 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