New Method To Estimate Damaged Formation Permeability With Well Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most composite solutions used in modem well test interpretation use the "step-permeability" model where the altered formations are divided into two or more concentric zones, each with constant permeability. Depending on the causes of alteration or variation, this model can deviate significantly from the real condition. A formation can be altered because of stress redistribution, drilling damage, solids co-production, mineral precipitates, and drilling mud invasion, each factor more likely to generate spatially-varying permeabilities rather than constant k zones. Experimental data confirm that a continuous permeability model is more realistic than the step permeability model. A new semi-analytical solution with smooth radius-dependent permeability has been developed to analyze well test results from such altered formations. The altered formation is approximated as a concentric two-zone composite model: an exterior intact zone that retains the original unaltered permeability, and an interior zone where the permeability values have been altered and change as a function of radius. The permeability in this near-well zone can change continuously to the original permeability or to a different value at the boundary with the exterior zone, where there is a step-change in permeability. The choice of an increase or decrease of permeability with radius within the altered zone depends on the nature of the actual alteration. The permeability can also be simulated as a step-wise function if appropriate parameters are used; in such situations, the model collapses to conventional step-wise composite models. Other parameters such as formation porosity and compressibility of each zone can also be different, but they are assumed constant for this derivation. The new solution is derived in Laplace space, and numerical Laplace inversion is used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".