MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322116606 · doi:10.2118/175591-ms

A New Coupled Axial-Radial Productivity Model for Horizontal Wells with Application to High Order Numerical Modeling

2015· article· en· W2322116606 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 Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflowDiscretizationPiecewise linear functionPiecewiseFinite difference methodFlow (mathematics)LogarithmFinite differenceFinite volume methodMechanicsNumerical analysisMathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For long, highly productive wells, frictional pressure loss cannot be ignored. The axial flow along the well trajectory in the near-well region must therefore also be considered. A new, fully analytical model for coupled radial well inflow and axial reservoir flow has been developed. The new model will be briefly reviewed and solutions to steady state flow summarized. A discussion on the usage of the new model in simulation of horizontal wells together with its numerical performance compared to standard finite difference methods will be presented. The new analytical model has been used in the formulation of a numerical scheme for simulation of coupled well inflow and near-well reservoir flow. The analytical model results in a linear pressure distribution in the axial direction and a logarithmic pressure distribution in the radial direction in each near-well reservoir segment. Therefore, the pressure distribution is piecewise linear/logarithmic, contrary to existing piecewise constant distribution resulting from a standard finite difference method. Calculation examples are presented applying both the new method and the standard finite difference method to determine the pressure profiles and flow rates in both the wellbore and the near-well reservoir. Numerical results show that the new method represents a substantial improvement compared to a standard finite difference method, requiring fewer segments to achieve the same accuracy. The new method is more accurate especially near the heel, where accuracy is most important. This numerical scheme has also been proved to be higher order accurate in space discretization than a standard finite difference scheme. Since the axial flow rate is built into the new model analytically, the need for local grid refinements around the well is reduced.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.242 · 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