MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240421041 · doi:10.2118/05-11-05

Horizontal Well Infill Development of the Manor Spearfish Field

2005· article· en· W4240421041 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
J.D. Chodzicki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsInfillGeologyDrillingDirectional drillingGeotechnical engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Mining engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Manor Spearfish Field, located in Southeast Saskatchewan, was originally discovered in 1987, with the drilling of several vertical wells that encountered remnant Spearfish sands on top of the Alida carbonates. A few vertical wells were produced at low rates. In 1992, several companies aggressively developed the pool entirely through horizontal drilling. Production peaked at 1,100 m3/d, then declined to just over 110 m3/d. The pool has been the target of recent horizontal infill drilling. Several successful wells have been drilled, and Spearfish production from Crescent Point Energy operated wells has doubled from under 100 m3/d to almost 200 m3/d. Additional infill locations remain, both with new stand-alone horizontal wells and with horizontal re-entry wells. This paper reviews the predicted and actual results of five horizontal infill wells drilled in 2002. The methodology used in prioritizing the infill locations is also intended to illustrate the basic principles of reservoir engineering, and how they can be applied through simple analytical methods to yield favourable results. The paper, as such, provides a review of the basic engineering steps needed in a successful infill well development project. Background The Manor Spearfish Field is located approximately 3 km southwest of the town of Manor, Saskatchewan. It consists of Triassic aged Spearfish sands, [also called Lower Watrous or Amaranth sands(1)], which on-lap the Mississippian erosional surface and form reservoir grade sand bodies up to 8 m in thickness. The primary sands are the P-2 Lower or "C" sand and the P-2 Upper or "B" sand. The two sand layers vary from 1 to 3 m, with the thinner sands having more anhydrite occlusion and dolomite cementation. Porosity varies between 15 - 18%, and permeability varies between 5 - 25 mD. The top seal is formed by the impermeable overlying terrestrial Red Beds. Oil is sourced and charged from the underlying Alida beds, due to the absence of effective Mississipian cap-rock. The target of horizontal drilling is the P-2 Upper sand. There is some separation between the Upper and Lower P-2 sands in places, but it appears that there is likely communication through the barrier. There are also various amounts of separation between the Alida and the Lower P-2 sand. Pool Performance The pool was discovered in 1987 and production commenced from several vertical wells. Production was never very prolific, due to the low permeability nature of the reservoir. Figure 1 illustrates a map of the field and outlines the location of the horizontal infill wells. During the horizontal drilling boom of the early 1990s, the pool was aggressively developed, entirely with horizontal wells. Production dramatically increased and peaked in 1992, at approximately 1,100 m3/d. It should be noted that total production presented here is for Crescent Point Energy operated wells, only because the data is more current. Thus, the Spearfish production operated by Crescent Point peaked at 950 m3/d. Production then declined in an apparent harmonic fashion; rapidly at first, then leveling off at slower decline 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207