Rate-Transient Analysis of Liquid-Rich Tight/Shale Reservoirs Using the Dynamic Drainage Area Concept: Examples from North American Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The early-time performance of multi-fractured horizontal wells is mainly controlled by fracture geometry, total effective area of the fractures, and conductivity of the primary fracture system. Rate-transient analysis (RTA) methods have historically been used to characterize MFHWs at different stages of well life, including this early-time performance. In particular, linear flow analysis is used to estimate the total effective fracture area from online production data, provided that reservoir and fluid properties are known. However, a primary complication in linear flow analysis is the incorporation of nonlinearities such as multi-phase flow and pressure-dependent rock/fluid properties into the calculations. A new linear flow analysis technique is presented in the current study, which can be applied to tight/shale systems with multi-phase flow and pressure-dependent rock/fluid properties. The method combines three important reservoir engineering concepts for linear flow analysis: dynamic drainage area (DDA), material balance, and decoupling of saturation and pressure (which is analogous to the decoupling of geomechanics and fluid flow). The DDA concept, which uses a time-dependent well productivity index equation for the transient flow period, facilitates the incorporation of any sort of nonlinearity (including decoupled saturation functions) and operational constraints in modeling and RTA of linear flow in MFHWs. The method is validated against numerical simulation and applied to various sets of field production data from tight/shale gas and oil wells with different levels of condensate- (oil-) gas ratio. For all the field cases, total effective fracture area obtained from the new analytical RTA method is in reasonable agreement with numerical modeling results. Regarding accuracy and practicality, the new method represents an improvement in RTA of liquid-rich tight/shale reservoirs, particularly for cases with multi-phase flow and pressure-dependent rock/fluid properties. Further, the concepts used in the new model development are easy to understand and implement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".