MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035135586 · doi:10.2118/2005-061

Coupled Numerical Simulation of Reservoir Flow With Formation Plugging

2005· article· en· W2035135586 on OpenAlexaff
R. Salehi Mojarad, A. Settari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringReservoir simulationFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceGeologyComputer simulationMechanicsSimulationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Permeability decline occurs during injection of produced water and seawater, resulting in injectivity decline and significant cost increases in waterflooding projects. It is necessary to have a reliable model to predict injectivity decline for preventive water treatment and waterflood design purposes. A classical deep bed filtration (DBF) model has been widely used to predict the injectivity decline. According to this model the injectivity decline can be characterized by two empirical parameters: filtration coefficient λ, and formation damage coefficient ®. Different methodologies developed to extract these parameters involve expensive and difficult concentration measurements, laboratory scaled pressure drop measurements (not representative of real reservoir), and simplifying assumptions of analytical solutions. A simple empirical velocity-based damage model proposed by Bachman et al. (SPE 79695) is adopted in this work, and extended to multi-dimensional flow. This model is then compared to the deep bed filtration-based model. The advantage of the empirical model is that it can be easily tuned to either field or laboratory data, and can be easily implemented in reservoir simulators. The paper presents the formulation and numerical implementation of the two coupled reservoir flow and damage models. Different methods of implementing the velocity-based model in multidimensional flow are presented and evaluated. The comparison with the DBF model shows that the two models yield similar damage characteristics. Finally, application of the model to analysis of the published data in offshore Golf of Mexico is presented. The relationship between the parameters of the two different approaches is validated for these case studies. Introduction As oil fields mature, the volumes of produced water requiring disposal increase significantly. Re-injecting produced water is an attractive, environmentally sound solution to water disposal problems but entails the risk of poor injectivity. Produced water normally contains varying concentrations of particles, which have a direct effect on the injectivity decline (injectivity index is defined as the ratio of the injection rate to the given pressure head). They can cause equivalent skins on the order of 200 or more. It has been shown that declining well injectivity is the major cost-increasing item in the case of re-injection. Standard formulation of damage mechanics is based on the classical deep bed filtration (concentration-based) model (DBF). Injectivity decline is characterized by two parameters: filtration coefficient λ, and formation damage coefficient?. Methodologies developed to determine these parameters involve expensive and difficult measurements, scaling problems, and simplifying assumptions of analytical solutions. Moreover, the model is not easily implemented in reservoir simulators. Bachman et al.(14) proposed an empirical velocity-based damage model that could be easily tuned to field or laboratory data, and easily implemented in reservoir simulators. However, the model was formulated in 1-D and its extension (and validity) in multidimensional flow was not shown. This paper presents development of a 2D formulation and numerical implementation of permeability impairment based on the velocity-based model. The results will be compared with classical DBF approach to validate the result against deep bed filtration theory. Application of the model to the published data from offshore Golf of Mexico is presented.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207