Analysis of horizontal well productivity in tight gas formations and its sensitivity to reservoir properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horizontal wells are frequently used in gas reservoirs to enhance the production performance by increasing the contact surface of the well with the formation. Although some methods have been presented to evaluate vertical well productivity in tight gas reservoirs, the detailed information regarding horizontal wells has not yet been deeply addressed. This study uses a modified backpressure test method based on the isochronal test to determine the correct value of the productivity of horizontal wells in a pressure-dependent viscosity anisotropic tight gas formation. To use the isochronal test calculations in the modified backpressure test, the “process conversion-flowing pressure correction” approach was used to convert the modified backpressure test process into the isochronal test. The comparison between productivity values before and after correction with the simulation results validates that how this method can successfully estimate the productivity in horizontal wells. We perform a sensitivity analysis on the error between the pseudo-pressure before and after correction and show its variation with porosity, permeability, skin, formation thickness, and temperature. This can be helpful to understand the importance of correcting pseudo-pressure under different conditions. Results validate that the proposed method of productivity analysis is needed for horizontal wells and should be applied especially in low permeable and thin (tight gas) formations to acquire the precise value of productivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".