MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2797180253 · doi:10.2118/190884-ms

Effect of Variation in Fractures Conductivity and Well Location on Pressure Transient Response from Fractured Reservoirs

2018· article· en· W2797180253 on OpenAlexfundno aff
D. Egya, S. Geiger, Patrick W. Corbett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPetroleum Technology Development FundEnergi Simulation
KeywordsFracture (geology)GeologyPetroleum engineeringFlow (mathematics)ConductivityTransient (computer programming)Transient flowReservoir simulationGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsComputer scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fractures often influence production behaviour in hydrocarbon reservoirs, yet the pressure transients observed in the wells may not show the conventional well-test signatures. In this case, the effect of fractures on production would be misinterperted or even completely missed. Fracture networks are commonly multi-scale and properties including aperture (or conductivity), length, connectivity and distribution vary greatly within a reservoir. The heterogeneous nature of fractured reservoirs make them very difficult to characterise and develop. In addition, the location of a producer within the fracture network also control flow rates and affect the pressure response; however, conventional well-test analysis assumes that the producer is located in symmetrical fracture networks. To improve our understanding of fracture flow behaviour from well-test data, and in order to better characterise the impact of fractures on reservoir performance, we investigate the effect of variations in fracture conductivity and location of the producer in the fracture network on the pressure transient responses. Naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR) with well-connected fracture networks are traditionally simulated using the Dual-Porosity (DP) model. However, several studies have shown that the classic DP response (V-shape) corresponding to the DP model is an exceptional behaviour applicable only to certain reservoir geology and does not apply to all NFR. To overcome the limitations of the characteristic flow behaviour inherent to this model, we employ Discrete Fracture Matrix (DFM) modelling technique and an unstructured-grid reservoir simulator to generate synthetic pressure transients in all fracture networks that we analysed. Our rigorous and systematic geoengineering workflow enables us to correlate the pressure transients to the known geological features of the simulated reservoir model. We observed that depending on the location of the producer in the fracture network and the properties of the fractures that the producer intercepts, the synthetic pressure transients vary significantly. We therefore use these insights to quantify the impact of variation in fracture conductivity and producer location on fracture flow behaviour and systematically present interpretations to these behaviours. Our findings enable us to interpret some unconventional features of intersecting fractures with variable conductivity. We observed that the behaviour of two intersecting fractures where the well asymmetrically intercepts a finite-conductivity fracture can be similar to that of a well intercepting a fracture in a connected fracture network with uniform fracture conductivity. Furthermore, a well intercepting a finite-conductivity fracture in NFR with both finite- and infinite-conductivity fractures would yield a dual-porosity response that may otherwise be absent if the fracture network is assumed to have uniform conductivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→