MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966138019 · doi:10.2118/87824-pa

A Review of Permeability-Prediction Methods for Carbonate Reservoirs Using Well-Log Data

2004· review· en· W1966138019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsPermeability (electromagnetism)PorosityGeologyCarbonateMineralogyCorrelation coefficientWell loggingFractalTest dataSoil sciencePetroleum engineeringMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsMaterials scienceEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The prediction of permeability in heterogeneous carbonates from well-log data represents a difficult and complex problem. Generally, a simple correlation between permeability and porosity cannot be developed, and other well-log parameters need to be embedded into the correlation. The first part of this paper covers an extensive review of the existing correlations in the literature. The use of porosity and other petrophysical properties of rock in permeability prediction is discussed for carbonaceous rocks. This discussion also covers the usefulness of a wide variety of correlations developed using pore-scale (Kozeny-Carman, percolation, and fractal models) to field-scale models (well logs). In the second part of the paper, a case study is presented. The data are obtained from a complex carbonate field in Oman. Conventional and nonconventional (mainly nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR) well-log data are evaluated to seek the parameters reflecting a good correlation with permeability. After testing each independent variable against core permeability, the variables yielding the highest correlation coefficient (CC) are included in multiple regression analysis. Data collected from seven wells are used to obtain the permeability correlations for the whole field and for four geological units separately. The test of the correlations is achieved through the comparison of the estimated permeability values to core permeability. Finally, the correlations are compared with the core permeability of the eighth well (data from this well are not included in the development of the correlation) for validation. The correlations are obtained for the four geological units. Two of these units responded well to conventional well-log data; the other two units yielded reasonable correlations only with NMR log data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it