MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119607571 · doi:10.2118/77701-ms

Gas/Condensate and Oil Well Testing - From the Surface

2002· article· en· W2119607571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil wellWellboreCompletion (oil and gas wells)ThermalTransducerBubble pointMechanicsBubbleGeologyEngineeringElectrical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since Cullender and Smith(1), surface pressures have been used to calculate bottomhole pressures on shallow, dry gas wells. If the original Cullender and Smith equations are modified to account for produced liquids, the correlation may be extended to gas/condensate wells that are single-phase in the well bore. Single-phase liquid wells (water injectors and oil wells above the bubble point) can also yield accurate well test results from the surface. Testing from the surface reduces the cost and eliminates the risk of running tools into well bores. Surface testing also allows the testing of high-pressure/high-temperature wells that cannot be tested with a downhole gauge because of harsh conditions. Thus, to reduce the cost and risk (or when no other option is available), many operators have chosen to run their pressure transient tests from the surface on single-phase wells. Recently, it has become possible to test most naturally-unloading gas/condensate and oil wells from the surface. This is due to advances in multi-phase wellbore modeling along with improved pressure transducer quality. Of these, the most important advances are the improvements in transducer manufacture and calibration that make it possible for a surface pressure gauge to be effectively isolated from ambient and wellbore thermal transients. Although the technology exists to get representative reservoir data from the surface, testing procedures in multi-phase wells have to take into account the fluid's behavior in the well bore. With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to propose guidelines for testing multiphase wells from the surface. First, the general framework of the surface-to-bottomhole pressure calculation will be presented. Next, multi-phase wells will be categorized based on the type of fluid and the behavior of the fluid both in the reservoir and in the well bore. This categorization will be the basis for both surface testing candidate selection and recommended test procedures. Afterwards, wellbore phase and temperature modeling will be discussed. Next, instrumentation requirements will be presented. Finally, field data comparing calculated bottomhole pressures from surface gauges to measured bottomhole pressures from downhole gauges (and the subsequent analysis) will be presented for both a gas/condensate and an oil well. These examples will be used to demonstrate that in order to test a multi-phase well from the surface, a thermally compensated quartz pressure gauge must be used in conjunction with a properly designed and executed test procedure. An explanation will also be provided as to why the best test that can be performed on a well to determine skin, permeability and the size of a reservoir is a constant-choke drawdown.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.213 · 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