<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>03026nmc a2200229   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="005">20260520010454.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">260224s        xxu                      </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="082" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">068.82 553.28 C62 15730</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="210" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Simposio de Desarrollo de Vaca Muerta</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">MONITOREO ALTERNATIVO DE PRODUCCI&#xD3;N DE GAS CON T&#xC9;CNICAS DE MACHINE LEARNING</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="270" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">27/08/2024 ; 27/08/2024</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">14 p. ; 459-472</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Fluid flow quantification is crucial for an accurate determination of individual well productivity. In blocks where production is mostly based on dry/wet gas, this information is obtained by dedicated flow quantity indicators (FQI) measurements. As an alternative to FQI measurements to estimate fluid flow, a common mathematical expression is the choke formula (CF). However, this formula is not always usable due to the assumption of a monophasic fluid flow (only gas). As a matter of fact, from own experience, for shale gas wells choke formula seems to perform typically very well in decline stages of production but poorly in ramp up stages where water production is not negligible. As part of monitoring procedures during the productive time of a well, many other variables are measured with an hourly frequency, such as: choke, pressures after and before choke, and temperatures after and before choke. This available information is part of all wells&amp;#x92; production history. The objective of the present work was to make use of other wells&amp;#x92; production history data for gas flow estimation in horizontal wells in order to avoid redundant FQI measurements and achieve cost reduction. For that, a Machine Learning (ML) based model was proposed, which was able to capture decline trends from historical production data. ML model&amp;#x92;s performance was compared to CF estimations as a proxy for acceptable accuracy levels according to the Oil &amp; Gas industry standards. The results obtained with ML model proved to estimate individual gas flow in a wide range of wells with an acceptable performance that, in 82% of total cases, was more accurate than choke formula based on R2 scores. In positive prediction cases, accumulated gas estimation with ML model showed a lower error than CF estimation, with errors being below the 5% tolerance margin. These results suggest an alternative way to exploit monitoring data to estimate gas flow production in gas fields. Achieved results demonstrate the high prediction potential of AI algorithms when combined with proper use of data. Further efforts may lead to a more robust model for a larger number of wells within the same fluid window.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="g"></subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">CONGTP</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Canatelli, Axel</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">61649</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Dupuis, Godefroy</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">61814</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Parigini, Lorenzo</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">61777</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="111" ind1="2" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Congreso de Exploraci&#xF3;n y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos (11er : 2022 nov. 8 - 11 : Mendoza)</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">61064</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">196672</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">196672</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://biblioteca.iapg.org.ar/ArchivosAdjuntos/Conexplor2022/Simp.VacaMuerta/vacamuerta26.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">264391</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">BVIAPG</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">BVIAPG</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">068.82 553.28 C62 15730</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2026-03-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="j">200069102</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">068.82 553.28 C62 15730</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">200069102</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2026-03-06 00:42:06</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2026-03-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">ARCHIVO</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
