MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037704058 · doi:10.2118/09-07-54

Transient Pressure Behaviour Under Non- Darcy Flow, Formation Damage and Their Combined Effect for Dual Porosity Reservoirs

2009· article· en· W2037704058 on OpenAlexaff
Fanhua Zeng, Gang Zhao, Xinghua Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarcy's lawSkin effectMechanicsDarcy numberDarcy–Weisbach equationWellboreFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringPorosityPorous mediumGeologyPetroleum engineeringEngineeringPhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A semi-analytical model is presented to study transient pressure behaviour of vertical wells in a dual porosity reservoir under the influence of non-Darcy flow inside the reservoir (Forchheimer number), formation damage around the wellbore (mechanical skin factor), and their combined effect (near-wellbore non-Darcy skin factor). Unique transient pressure behaviour is presented in both semi-log pressure and log-log pressure derivative plots. Semi-log pressure plots suggest that for a vertical well producing with a constant sandface flow rate, its pressure responses exhibit two linear portions for Darcy flow, even with non-Darcy skin factor (i.e. the near-wellbore non-Darcy skin factor is larger than zero). However, the first linear portion will dismiss if non-Darcy flow presents inside the reservoir (i.e. the Forchheimer number is larger than zero). Further pressure derivative analyses in a log-log plot suggest that:both Forchheimer number and nearwellbore non-Darcy skin factor lead to a narrower and steeper transition region between pure wellbore storage and radial flow region for build up tests and a wider and gentler one for drawdown tests; andthe derivative curves under the effect of the Forchheimer number always exhibit a slight convex shape in the radial flow region, rather than a horizontal line with a constant value of 0.5 for Darcy flow. The type curves presented may be applied to estimate mechanical skin factor, Forchheimer number and near-wellbore non- Darcy skin factor from a single rate test. Synthetic cases show that ignoring the globally distributed non-Darcy flow causes errors of up to 300% in interpreting dual porosity characteristic parameters. Both synthetic and field case studies suggest that the non-Darcy flow has a significant effect on the interpretation of the inter-porosity flow coefficient, ?, and less effect on the interpretation of the storativity ratio, ?. Introduction The Forchheimer equation suggests that high velocity gas flow in porous media obeys the following quadratic equation: Equation (available in full paper) It has been recognized that Forchheimer non-Darcy flow is introduced by gas inertial effects; thus, ß?is called the inertial factor. Forchheimer non-Darcy flow is a universal phenomenon in gas reservoir development. It could affect reservoir parameter estimations, well productivity evaluation and production performance analysis. Observations in the field(1) and the laboratory(2, 3) have suggested that, in the fracture system of a naturally fractured reservoir, the pressure loss is dominated by the square term in the Forchheimer equation. Studies on modelling non-Darcy flow in naturally fractured reservoirs are limited. The first attempt was reported by Villalobos-L. et al.(4). Based on numerical results of a radial liquid flow model with the Forchheimer non-Darcy flow, these authors derived an expression of a rate-dependent pseudo-skin term similar to that in homogeneous single porosity reservoirs. Wu(5) modelled non-Darcy flow in a naturally fractured system using the Multiple Interacting Continua (MINC) method by applying the results of Darcy flow to approximate the characteristic length of non-Darcy flow distance between fractures and the matrix crossing the interface for the dual porosity formation. He observed that semi-log plots of pressure drop versus time are extremely sensitive to the values of non-Darcy coefficient.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207