MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022411385 · doi:10.2118/144057-ms

Modeling Fractured Horizontal Wells As Dual Porosity Composite Reservoirs – Application to Tight Gas, Shale Gas and Tight Oil Cases

2011· article· en· W2022411385 on OpenAlexaff
Imad Brohi, Mehran Pooladi‐Darvish, Roberto Aguilera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityFlow (mathematics)Tight gasMechanicsGeologyOil shaleFracture (geology)Tight oilMatrix (chemical analysis)Laplace transformPetroleum engineeringWork (physics)Geotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceMathematicsHydraulic fracturingPhysicsThermodynamicsComposite materialMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multiply-fractured horizontal wells are an efficient way to produce from tight gas, shale gas and tight oil formations. In this work, we present a linear composite model with a dual porosity inner zone to model production from a multiple fractured horizontal well. The composite solution uses linear dual porosity flow solution for the inner reservoir and a linear single porosity solution for the outer reservoir combined with continuity of pressure and flux at their interface. Solution to the problem was obtained in Laplace space. The solution that we have obtained is simple and fast, yet effective and can be applied to model production from fractured horizontal wells. For the cases of interest, we observe three linear flow periods in this model. The first linear flow is from the fractures into the wellbore, followed by linear flow in the matrix to the fractures and lastly linear flow in the outer single porosity reservoir to the inner reservoir. Each of these three linear flow periods is separated by a transition depending on the properties of the fracture, matrix and the outer reservoir. We use a numerical simulator to examine the validity of some of the assumptions made in the development of the work. While the model that we have made consists of only linear flow solutions, the numerical model accounts for two dimensional flows in all media. New solutions are presented in the form of type curves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations120
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207