MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779159683 · doi:10.1144/petgeo2017-053

Analysing the limitations of the dual-porosity response during well tests in naturally fractured reservoirs

2018· article· en· W2779159683 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Geoscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPetroleum Technology Development FundPetrobrasEnergi Simulation
KeywordsGeologyPorosityIgneous petrologyEnvironmental geologyEconomic geologyPetrologyDual (grammatical number)Regional geologyWell controlHydrogeologyTelmatologyMetamorphic petrologyPetroleum engineeringGeochemistryVolcanismGeotechnical engineeringEngineering geologySeismologyTectonicsMaterials scienceDrilling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geological reservoirs can be extensively fractured but the well-test signatures observed in the wells may not show a pressure transient response that is representative of naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs): for example, one that indicates two distinct pore systems (i.e. the mobile fractures and immobile matrix). Yet, the production behaviour may still be influenced by these fractures. To improve the exploitation of hydrocarbons from NFRs, we therefore need to improve our understanding of fluid-flow behaviour in fractures. Multiple techniques are used to detect the presence and extent of fractures in a reservoir. Of particular interest to this work is the analysis of well-test data in order to interpret the flow behaviour in an NFR. An important concept for interpreting well-test data from an NFR is the theory of dual-porosity model. However, several studies pointed out that the dual-porosity model may not be appropriate for interpreting well tests from all fractured reservoirs. This paper therefore uses geological well-testing insights to explore the limitations of the characteristic flow behaviour inherent to the dual-porosity model in interpreting well-test data from Type II and III NFRs of Nelson's classification. To achieve this, we apply a geoengineering workflow with discrete fracture matrix (DFM) modelling techniques and unstructured-grid reservoir simulations to generate synthetic pressure transient data in both idealized fracture geometries and real fracture networks mapped in an outcrop of the Jandaira Formation. We also present key reservoir features that account for the classic V-shape pressure derivative response in NFRs. These include effects of fracture skin, a very tight matrix permeability and wells intersecting a minor, unconnected fracture close to a large fracture or fracture network. Our findings apply to both connected and disconnected fracture networks.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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