MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153146053 · doi:10.1144/petgeo2012-074

Using geological well testing for improving the selection of appropriate reservoir models

2014· article· en· W2153146053 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

VenuePetroleum Geoscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeobiologyEconomic geologyRegional geologyEnvironmental geologyMetamorphic petrologyTelmatologyIgneous petrologyEngineering geologyHydrogeologyPalaeogeographySelection (genetic algorithm)Reservoir modelingPetroleum engineeringSeismologyComputer scienceVolcanismGeotechnical engineeringTectonicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analytical well-test solutions are mainly derived for simplified and idealized reservoir models and therefore cannot always honour the true complexity of real reservoir heterogeneities. Pressure transients in the reservoir average out heterogeneities, and therefore some interpretations may not be relevant and could be misleading. Geological well testing refers to the numerical simulation of transient tests by setting up detailed geological models, within which different scales of heterogeneity are present. The concept of geological well testing described in this paper assists in selecting from multiple equi-probable static models. This approach is used to understand which heterogeneities can influence the pressure transients. In this paper, a low-energy multi-facies fluvial reservoir is studied, for which data from a well test of exceptionally long duration are available. The pervasive low reservoir quality facies and restricted macro cross-flow between the reservoir layers give rise to an effective commingled system of flow into the wellbore (i.e. zero or very low vertical cross-flow between the reservoir units). In our model, facies transitions produce lateral cross-flow transients that result in a ‘double-ramp-effect’ signature in the test response. A sophisticated multi-point statistical (MPS) facies modelling approach is utilized to simulate complex geological heterogeneities and to represent facies spatial connectivity within a set of generated static models. The geological well-test model responses to a real well-testing cycle are then evaluated using dynamic simulation. The pressure match between simulated and recorded data is improved by generating multiple facies and petrophysical realizations, and by applying an engineering-based hybridization algorithm to combine different models that match particular portions of the real well-test response. In this example, the reservoir dynamics are controlled by subtle interaction between high-permeability channels and low-permeability floodplain deposits. Effective integration of geology and dynamic data using modern methods can lead to better reservoir characterization and modelling of such complex reservoir systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.224 · 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