Static and Dynamic Assessment of DFN Permeability Upscaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nearly half of the remaining petroleum reserves are contained in naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR). An accurate estimate of the effective fracture permeability tensor is a key to the successful prediction of oil recovery from NFR. Standard workflows nowadays employ discrete fracture network (DFN) modeling and analytical or flow-based methods to upscale fracture permeabilities. However, DFN modeling imposes some important challenges, which can cause great uncertainty in the effective permeability tensor and subsequent recovery prediction: Analytical upscaling methods, which are commonly used due to computational efficiency, are inaccurate for poorly connected fracture networks. Flow-based upscaling methods depend on boundary conditions and are computationally expensive. Defining the optimum grid size for either method is also very difficult. In addition, DFN upscaling is often driven by practical issues such as time constrains and computational limitations, leaving little room to investigate the effects of upscaling methods and grid size. In this paper we utilize features in leading DFN simulators employed in standard industry workflows for computing effective permeability tensors with flow-based and analytical methods. We use two realistic dataset from fractured formations of onshore reservoirs in our assessment. Not surprisingly, there is up to three orders of magnitude variation in the effective permeability based on the chosen upscaling method and perceived optimum grid cell size. This has tremendous impact on predicted recovery rates and ultimate recovery; ultimately uncertainty in upscaling can mask uncertainty in the geological model. We hence introduce a new simulation technique, Discrete Fracture and Matrix (DFM) modeling, which accounts accurately for flow in the fractures and rock matrix as an efficient alternative for computing effective permeability tensors as it allows us to assess the accuracy of classical DFN upscaling approaches, which all help reducing uncertainty in recovery prediction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".