MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239981509 · doi:10.2523/75685-ms

New Completion Techniques Improve Production Rates in a Maturing Gas Reservoir

2002· article· en· W4239981509 on OpenAlex
Marty Stromquist, Boulton Ken, Pangracs Steve

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPE Gas Technology Symposium · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoiled tubingPetroleum engineeringDrillingWell stimulationProductivityFossil fuelProduction (economics)Directional drillingNatural gas fieldCompletion (oil and gas wells)Oil productionEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringPetroleumReservoir engineeringNatural gasEconomicsWaste managementMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure continued economic success of drilling new wells in maturing gas or oil fields, it is often necessary to find methods to reduce well costs or to improve stimulation efficiency. Imperial Oil Resources applied the emerging technologies of grass-roots coiled tubing drilling and coiled tubing fracturing in the Tilley Milk River Gas Unit. This paper will describe the impact of these new technologies on well economics and production.In 2000, grass-roots coiled tubing drilling was used on 9 wells in the Tilley field. Drilling costs were 15% below estimates. Coiled tubing fracturing was also applied to the wells drilled in 2000. First year average gas productivity was 50% higher than expectations, leading to investment reappraisals indicating that well reserves were 30% above previous estimates. In 2001 an additional 25 wells were fracture stimulated with coiled tubing also showing increased production rates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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