MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251461819 · doi:10.1504/ijogct.2018.093140

Selection of decline curve analysis method using the cumulative production incline rate for transient production data obtained from a multi-stage hydraulic fractured horizontal well in unconventional gas fields

2018· article· en· W4251461819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dongkwon Han, Sunil Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Oil Gas and Coal Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
KeywordsProduction (economics)Stage (stratigraphy)Environmental scienceCumulative distribution functionTransient (computer programming)StatisticsGeologyMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research presents the selection of an appropriate decline curve analysis (DCA) methodology according to the transient production performance of a multi-fractured horizontal well in an unconventional gas field by using the cumulative production incline rate (IQp) The IQp introduced in this research is the change of cumulative production per unit time divided by the cumulative production. The IQp was confirmed for use as an indicator that could generalise and quantify a production decline through the analysis of well production data. The IQp values of eight and four DCA methods were applied to the production data generated by a reservoir simulation. The Duong method forecasted the production trends most accurately when the IQp exceeded 0.25%, while the YM-SEPD method was the most preferable for the rates below 0.05%. In addition, the analysis of production data for shale gas wells in Canada and the USA matched the simulation results, confirming that it would be reasonable to use the IQp in order to select a DCA method to forecast the production of unconventional gas wells. [Received: February 23, 2017; Revised: December 7, 2017; Accepted: December 9, 2017]

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Oil Gas and Coal TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207