Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract A tight gas reservoir is commonly defined as a reservoir having less than 0.1 millidarcies permeability. There are several basic concepts and field cases of different well tests in tight gas reservoirs in the literature, but not presented as a general guide. In this paper, we gather valuable information and provide a useful guide to the most important well tests in tight gas reservoirs. Generally due to low permeability of these reservoirs, a well will not flow initially at measurable rates and conventional well testing cannot be applied. Therefore, fracture stimulation must be considered. Many authors present procedures for design of pre and post-frac tests. The pre-frac test permits calculating preliminary estimates of reservoir permeability and initial pressure. Because of economic and environmental reasons, short duration procedures are of interest. Hence, prime candidates are pre-frac, short time, small volume, closed chamber tests. These tests have to be analyzed by special methods to provide improved values of reservoir parameters. In this study, we also present a review of some aspects in tight gas well testing like pressure-dependent permeability, estimation of pseudo-time at the average pressure of the region of influence, supercharge effect, the problem of treating the pressure-dependent product µct during pre-frac test analysis and the concept of instantaneous source response Introduction Large decreases in production and increases in demand for fossil-fuels cause the economic gas production from unconventional resources (tight gas, coal bed methane (CBM), and gas hydrate) to be a great challenge. Huge reserves, longterm potential, low gas prices and some other factors account for the great influence of these resources on the future of energy. There is no formal definition for "Tight gas". Commonly used definition, describes tight gas reservoirs as those having permeabilities less than 0.1 millidarcies. Recently, the German Society for Petroleum and Coal Science and Technology (DGMK) defined tight gas reservoirs as those with average effective gas permeability of less than 0.6 mD. "Ultra tight" gas reservoirs may exhibit permeabilities down to 0.001 mD. To improve the recovery of this resource, GFREE [1] research program has been created at the University of Calgary. GFREE [1] stands for:Geoscience aspects (G)Formation evaluation by petrophysics and well test (F)Reservoir drilling, completion and stimulation (R)Reservoir Engineering (RE)Economics and long run supply curves (E) As a part of the activities of this research program, we have concentrated on Formation evaluation (F) by well testing, and conducted a literature survey which is presented in this paper. Well testing is generally done to estimate hydrocarbon (here gas) in-place and recoverable resources. Initial pressure is a critical parameter not only for estimating gas in-place, but also for determining how much field development is required and whether or not the field is overdeveloped. In addition to pi, well testing provides an estimate of permeability. A problem associated with well testing in tight gas sands is that usually long times are required to reach redial flow, due to their extremely low permeabilities.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».