MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969743205 · doi:10.2118/143305-pa

A Method To Implement Permeability Anisotropy Associated With Fault Damage Zones in Reservoir Simulation

2011· article· en· W1969743205 on OpenAlexaff
Pijush Paul, Mark D. Zoback, Peter Hennings

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersConocoPhillipsU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAnisotropyPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this study, we present a method to incorporate the effects of fault damage zones (DZs) in a reservoir-simulation model. Permeability anisotropy associated with fault DZs depends on many factors, including the geometry of the faults in the reservoir and the associated dimension and density of fractures in the DZs. To model permeability anisotropy caused by fault DZs, we start by using geomechanically constrained discrete fracture models of DZs. Then, we use the orientation and size of the faults with reference to the grid axes to incorporate the effect of permeability anisotropy in the simulation grid. In this case study, in which faults are formed in an extensional regime, DZs show increased permeability along the strike of the fault and in the vertical direction, but there is no significant change in the permeability perpendicular to the faults. Inclusion of DZs in the simulation model shows significant improvement in the history matching in comparison to a base reservoir-simulation model with no DZs. Further, we analyze the uncertainty of the DZ modeling in the reservoir simulation by simulating multiple equiprobable models.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207