State-of-the-Art of Tight Gas Sands Characterization and Production Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As part of the activities of the Conoco Phillips Chair in Tight Gas Engineering in the Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department at the University of Calgary, a comprehensive literature review has been conducted that has led to our understanding of the current status on the study of tight gas sand formations. This paper presents the results of that work concentrating initially on Canadian and U.S. tight gas sands. Next, we will examine these types of formations throughout the world. The resource base of tight gas sands is estimated to be between 90 and 1500 trillion cubic feet in Canada. The resource base around the world has been estimated at some 7500 trillion cubic feet. The literature survey discussed in this paper is the basis for the mission-oriented research on tight gas reservoirs conducted at the University of Calgary. This research looks at refining the resource base and recoveries from tight gas in Canada and finding economic means of extracting as much of this gas as possible. The planned research program will be presented. It is expected that the research program will result in the delivery of highly qualified professionals, with significant knowledge of tight gas formations, needed by industry and research organizations. In addition, it is likely that the research results will prove to be of value in other parts of the world, and will be exportable, creating business opportunities for Canadian companies. Evaluating the current status of geologic models, reservoir characterization, recovery and production technologies currently available for these types of formations is the first step in the effort to reach the final goal: finding economic means of producing as much of this gas as possible. Introduction Tight gas production is not reported in Canada. However, the interest in this resource is growing significantly. For example, a quick search in the SPE website using the words "tight sands" resulted in 5842 publications as of March 14, 2007. Obviously our goal in this survey paper is not to list everything that has been published in the literature but to highlight what we consider key issues in the evaluation and commercialization of tight gas sand production. Tight gas sands are part of what is usually known as unconventional gas which also includes coal bed methane, shale gas and natural gas hydrates. Tight gas sands have been defined in different ways by different organizations but a unique definition has proven elusive.1 The original definition dates back to the U.S. Gas Policy Act of 1978 that required in-situ gas permeability to be equal to or less than 0.1 md for the reservoir to qualify as a tight gas formation.2 At present this is probably the most commonly accepted definition. A second U.S. legal definition indicates that in a tight reservoir an average sustained un-stimulated initial gas rate is less than the maximum specified for a given depth class. However, it is important to understand that, although convenient, not only permeability and/or depth play a role in gas production from tight gas reservoirs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".