Coupled finite‐element simulation of injection well testing in unconsolidated oil sands reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper presents a finite‐element (FE) model for simulating injection well testing in unconsolidated oil sands reservoir. In injection well testing, the bottom‐hole pressure (BHP) is monitored during the injection and shut‐in period. The flow characteristics of a reservoir can be determined from transient BHP data using conventional reservoir or well‐testing analysis. However, conventional reservoir or well‐testing analysis does not consider geomechanics coupling effects. This simplified assumption has limitations when applied to unconsolidated (uncemented) oil sands reservoirs because oil sands deform and dilate subjected to pressure variation. In addition, hydraulic fracturing may occur in unconsolidated oil sands when high water injection rate is used. This research is motivated in numerical modeling of injection well testing in unconsolidated oil sands reservoir considering the geomechanics coupling effects including hydraulic fracturing. To simulate the strong anisotropy in mechanical and hydraulic behaviour of unconsolidated oil sands induced by fluid injection in injection well testing, a nonlinear stress‐dependent poro‐elasto‐plastic constitutive model together with a strain‐induced anisotropic permeability model are formulated and implemented into a 3D FE simulator. The 3D FE model is used to history match the BHP response measured from an injection well in an oil sands reservoir. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".