MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987654504 · doi:10.2118/71033-ms

Analyzing Flowing Production Data with Standard Pressure Transient Methods

2001· article· en· W1987654504 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingComputer scienceSuperposition principleProduction (economics)Transformation (genetics)Data setFunction (biology)Flow (mathematics)Data analysisDerivative (finance)Data miningAlgorithmApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Interpretation of pressure transient data using the derivative curve has proven to be an effective method for quantifying and qualifying well/reservoir information. Analyzing pressure response data affected by multiple rate changes is well understood and readily done using this standard approach. Daily production data (Time-Rate-Pressure) adheres to the same physics and theoretical description as standard multi-rate drawdown data. Therefore, this form of data can be analyzed in a similar manner. This paper shows that the multiple flow rates and pressures forming production data can be transformed into an equivalent single rate data set for direct analysis using standard methods based on the associated derivative curve. The transformation requires nothing more than careful superposition and the calculation of the normal radial flow derivative curve. We show that this approach avoids two of the biggest difficulties with using rate-time type curves for the analysis of production data: the lack of methods for determining the regions in the data representing the proper flow regimes to apply the appropriate analysis, and the calculation of the correct pseudoequivalent production time function. A method for incorporating a derivative smoothing technique is included to improve the ability to interpret field data, which can often be erratic and difficult to analyze. After a brief presentation of the necessary theory, the applicability of this approach using both simulated examples and field data will be demonstrated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.297 · 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