Well Test Analysis of Multi-Layered Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Variable Thickness and Variable Fracture Spacing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction This technical note is a synopsis of paper 2001–091. The readers are referred to the full-length paper for additional details, nomenclature and illustrations. Outcrop information, cores, images, and well logs have shown that in some cases, naturally fractured reservoirs are composed of many layers(1). The thinner the layer, the smaller the fracture spacing (or distance between natural fractures). This is illustrated in Figure 1, which is a photo of the Cardium sandstone outcrop at Seebe Dam near Calgary, Alberta. For this type of reservoir, some fractures may be intersected by the wellbore and others may not, as is shown in the schematic of Figure 2. A production log would show only the fluid entrance points into the wellbore. The production log would not give an indication of net pay in this naturally fractured reservoir, only an indication of where the wellbore intersects the most important fractures. It is not unusual to see, from a production log, that out of 30 m perforated in a fractured reservoir, only 2 to 3 m contribute production into the wellbore, even if the 30 m are true net pay. This is the result of a typical situation that occurs in most naturally fractured reservoirs we are familiar with; i.e., the matrix has a very low permeability, which does not permit efficient fluid flow into the wellbore. This same tight matrix, however, can flow very efficiently into the natural fractures(1). Various papers have contributed to our understanding of transient behaviour in multi-layered reservoirs(2–6). Aguilera et al.(7) evaluated data from the naturally fractured Palm Valley gas field using analytical and numerical simulation techniques. Both approaches provided approximately the same results. In a subsequent paper, Aguilera(8) used a numerical simulator to examine the behaviour of a naturally fractured reservoir with ten layers and with fracture permeabilities ranging between 6.91 and 1,232.41 mD. The geometric mean permeability was 40 mD. The thickness of each layer (1.6 m) and the fracture spacing (3.35 m) were constant. From this analysis, it was concludedthat multi-layered behaviour could be recognized by a pressure derivative indicating partial penetration effects, even if the well was perforated in all layers. The partial penetration effects correspond to a derivative with a slope equal to about - 0.5. This was followed by an indication of linear flow; i.e., aslope of the pressure derivative equal to approximately +0.5. This technical note is a continuation of the research published by Aguilera(8). In the present paper, we are using the same numerical model, but in addition to variations in fracture permeability, we include variations in layer thickness, fracture spacing, and fracture porosity(9). FIGURE 1: Outcrop of the Cardium sandstone showing variations in layer thickness and fracture spacing (Seebe Dam, Alberta, Canada). Width of shown outcrop is approximately 25 m. Results Most reservoir parameters have been kept as in the previous study(8). Pay thickness for the reservoir is 16 m. Matrix porosity is 4.8% Matrix permeability is 0.023 mD. Gas saturation in the matrix is 42%, and gas saturation in the fractures is 99%.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».