Reconciling Core Derived Permeabilities and Well Test Using A Fracture Network: A Field Case Example
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reconciling Core Derived Permeabilities and Well Test Using A Fracture Network: A Field Case Example Mohsen Charfeddine; Mohsen Charfeddine ADCO Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Maged Al-Deeb; Maged Al-Deeb ADCO Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Salem El-Abd; Salem El-Abd ADCO Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Asnul Bahar; Asnul Bahar Kelkar and Associates, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Harun Ates; Harun Ates Kelkar and Associates, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Tono Soeriawinata; Tono Soeriawinata Kelkar and Associates, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Mohan Kelkar Mohan Kelkar The Univ. of Tulsa Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, October 2002. Paper Number: SPE-78499-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/78499-MS Published: October 13 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Charfeddine, Mohsen, Al-Deeb, Maged, El-Abd, Salem, Bahar, Asnul, Ates, Harun, Soeriawinata, Tono, and Mohan Kelkar. "Reconciling Core Derived Permeabilities and Well Test Using A Fracture Network: A Field Case Example." Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, October 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/78499-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractIt is a common observation that well test permeability values do not match with thickness weighted core permeability averages. This is not a surprise because of the differences in the measurement scales where, unlike well test measurements, core samples represent a very small portion of the reservoir around the well bore. In addition, the presence of fractures and/or high permeability channels will further enhance the difference between the two sources of data. Therefore, reservoir descriptions based on core measurements alone cannot honor well test results. They need to be modified properly without violating the underlying geological and geostatistical information.In this paper, we present a methodology to properly enhance permeability fields that also accounts for fracture distribution in the reservoir. The basic idea is that radial upscaling around a wellbore within a given investigation radius should match the permeability obtained from well tests. The enhancement is caused by two factors: microfractures, which cannot be explicitly represented in the reservoir description, and macro-fractures, which can be interpreted using 3-D seismic data. To account for these two different types of fractures, we calculate two different enhancement factors, one for the base level (microfractures) and one for the higher level (macro-fractures). The base level, after appropriate interpolation, is applied across the entire reservoir, whereas the higher level is applied only to locations where macro-fractures are interpreted from 3-D seismic data.The technique was successfully applied to a Middle Eastern carbonate reservoir. A significant correlation is observed between the enhancement required to match the well test data and the fracture density (macro-fractures obtained from 3-D seismic data) within a given investigation area. A correlation function is then obtained between the enhancement factor and the fracture density for a given grid block, which in turn is used to apply enhancement to interwell locations. Thus, the resulting permeability field did not only honor the well test results but also the fracture distribution and the underlying geological and geostatistical descriptions. In a later stage, a tensorial approach was used to upscale permeability to account for the anisotropy in permeability distribution. Using this approach, a proper anisotropy of permeability distribution, matching the fracture orientation, has been obtained.IntroductionThis paper presents one aspect of the fully integrated reservoir characterization and flow simulation study of an oilfield in the Middle East. A comprehensive integrated reservoir characterization was conducted by considering all available data, namely well logs and cores, geological interpretation, seismic (structures and inversion-derived porosity), fracture network, and pressure build up tests. The approach used in the study was a stochastic approach where multiple reservoir descriptions were generated to quantify the uncertainty in the future performance (Ref. 1).Reservoir properties for each realization were generated using a geostatistical technique that produces properties, i.e., porosity, permeability and water saturation, consistent with the underlying rock type description. The description was based on core and log data. Additionally, porosity, which affects the permeability description, was also constrained to the seismic derived porosity. The permeability distribution generated by this method was referred to as the core-derived permeability in this paper. Keywords: well test, flow in porous media, reservoir simulation, society of petroleum engineers, grid block, fracture network, fluid dynamics, fracture, reservoir characterization, orientation Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Reservoir Characterization, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Reservoir Simulation, Formation Evaluation & Management, Flow in porous media This content is only available via PDF. 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».