MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220974130 · doi:10.2118/208909-ms

A Novel Procedure for Analyzing Production Decline in Unconventional Reservoirs Using Probability Density Functions

2022· article· en· W4220974130 on OpenAlexaff
Hamzeh Alimohammadi, Mehdi Sadeghi, Shengnan Nancy Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleProduction (economics)Tight gasWork (physics)Shale gasTight oilPetroleum engineeringEconometricsGeologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEconomicsHydraulic fracturingEngineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the past several decades, traditional decline curve analyses have been widely used as a quick and simple yet efficient method for reserve estimation and production forecasting. Several new models have been proposed since 2000s to address limitations of traditional decline models in shale and tight reservoirs especially multiple flow regimes and long-tail behavior of production profile which results in overestimating the reserve by the traditional models. Several of these newly proposed decline curve analysis (DCA) models are conservative and provide pessimistic reserve estimates. The main purpose of this work is to evaluate the application of six heavy-tailed probability density functions (PDFs) to approximate production in shale and tight reservoirs. A new class of DCA model suitable to capture the production decline trend in shale and tight reservoirs is examined using real and simulated production data. The proposed class of DCA has been demonstrated to predict production more accurately in tight and shale reservoirs especially when only limited data are available from wells with less than a few months of production history.

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 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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207