Application of Two-phase Pseudo-pressure in Gas-condensate Well-testing With and Without Positive Coupling and Inertia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well-test interpretation in gas condensate system is particularly challenging when condensation happens within the reservoir. This is not only due to the natural reduction of near wellbore mobilities, but also the existence of the velocity effects (i.e. positive coupling and inertia), which compete to revamp the relative permeabilities. In this study, a set of realistic build-up tests are generated using a compositional reservoir simulator, where measured (velocity dependent) relative permeabilities and a real gas condensate fluid model are used. The transient build-up tests are analysed using the real-gas and steady-state two-phase pseudo-pressures, and the (velocity dependent) reservoir integral transforms. The results show that the application of steady-state two-phase pseudo-pressure transform can result in a remarkable over-prediction of the reservoir permeability, when the velocity dependent relative permeabilities are in effect. Moreover, the traditional real-gas pseudo-pressure transform fails to estimate the reservoir properties particularly when the reservoir is initially below the dew point pressure. However, in either of situations (i.e. with and without velocity effects), using the reservoir integral transform leads to an excellent liquid analogy solution, where the reservoir properties can be accurately estimated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it