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 OpenAlexaff
Marty Stromquist, Boulton Ken, Pangracs Steve

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPE Gas Technology SymposiumSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207