Reconciling Core Derived Permeabilities and Well Test Using A Fracture Network: A Field Case Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is a common observation that well test permeability values do not match with thickness weighted core permeability averages. This is not a surprise because of the differences in the measurement scales where, unlike well test measurements, core samples represent a very small portion of the reservoir around the well bore. In addition, the presence of fractures and/or high permeability channels will further enhance the difference between the two sources of data. Therefore, reservoir descriptions based on core measurements alone cannot honor well test results. They need to be modified properly without violating the underlying geological and geostatistical information. In this paper, we present a methodology to properly enhance permeability fields that also accounts for fracture distribution in the reservoir. The basic idea is that radial upscaling around a wellbore within a given investigation radius should match the permeability obtained from well tests. The enhancement is caused by two factors: microfractures, which cannot be explicitly represented in the reservoir description, and macro-fractures, which can be interpreted using 3-D seismic data. To account for these two different types of fractures, we calculate two different enhancement factors, one for the base level (microfractures) and one for the higher level (macro-fractures). The base level, after appropriate interpolation, is applied across the entire reservoir, whereas the higher level is applied only to locations where macro-fractures are interpreted from 3-D seismic data. The technique was successfully applied to a Middle Eastern carbonate reservoir. A significant correlation is observed between the enhancement required to match the well test data and the fracture density (macro-fractures obtained from 3-D seismic data) within a given investigation area. A correlation function is then obtained between the enhancement factor and the fracture density for a given grid block, which in turn is used to apply enhancement to interwell locations. Thus, the resulting permeability field did not only honor the well test results but also the fracture distribution and the underlying geological and geostatistical descriptions. In a later stage, a tensorial approach was used to upscale permeability to account for the anisotropy in permeability distribution. Using this approach, a proper anisotropy of permeability distribution, matching the fracture orientation, has been obtained.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".