Matching Technical Solutions to the Lifecycle Phase is the Key to Developing a CBM Prospect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matching Technical Solutions to the Lifecycle Phase is the Key to Developing a CBM Prospect Matthew E. Blauch; Matthew E. Blauch Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Dana Weida; Dana Weida Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Mike Mullen; Mike Mullen Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar B. W. McDaniel B. W. McDaniel Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2002. Paper Number: SPE-75684-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/75684-MS Published: April 30 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Blauch, Matthew E., Weida, Dana, Mullen, Mike, and B. W. McDaniel. "Matching Technical Solutions to the Lifecycle Phase is the Key to Developing a CBM Prospect." Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/75684-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Unconventional Resources Conference / Gas Technology Symposium Search Advanced Search Abstract The early stages of a coalbed methane (CBM) project development often require more extensive use of currently available technologies than can be economically justified when approached from a conventional oil and gas drilling focus. As a result, key evaluation tools and technologies are either omitted or not considered before significant decisions are made regarding viability of a CBM play. Understanding that the various lifecycle phases will each affect different objectives and decision points is important. Following site acquisition and estimating basic drilling costs, at least five lifecycle phases can be identified: (1) Regional Resource Reconnaissance, (2) Local Asset Evaluation, (3) Early Development, (4) Mature Development; and (5) Declining Production.A systematic review of current and recently developed enabling technologies is presented in the context of their potential use and applicability. Environmental risk and other constraints that can impact development vary globally, as do economics and production forecasting. New and emerging chemical technologies, as well as hydraulic fracturing refinements, play key roles in various lifecycle phases and decision making to identify successful CBM development projects as early as possible. The paper presents strategies that can reduce development phase failure risk and help predict or rank production potential. Economic constraints usually become more restrictive as the lifecycle moves to Phase 4 and beyond, but key information needed to enter Phase 4 is often overlooked. Examples of this scenario are presented from a global perspective.Globally, new and existing technologies combined with dynamic gas and electricity markets are changing the nature of CBM development opportunities. More accurate and timely go/no-go information needs to be used in the decision making process. Converting development opportunities to develop-ment successes involves integrating planning and evaluation methods, using targeted development technologies in the proper phase, and managing risk. Keywords: drillstem testing, permeability, completion effectiveness, upstream oil & gas, coal seam gas, hydraulic fracturing, complex reservoir, lifecycle phase, technical solution, mullen Subjects: Drilling Operations, Hydraulic Fracturing, Well & Reservoir Surveillance and Monitoring, Reservoir Characterization, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Reservoir Simulation, Formation Evaluation & Management, Reserves Evaluation, Unconventional and Complex Reservoirs, Environment Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.030 |
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".