Developing a workflow to represent fractured carbonate reservoirs for simulation models under uncertainties based on flow unit concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description of fractured reservoir rock under uncertainties in a 3D model and integration with reservoir simulation is still a challenging topic. In particular, mapping the potential zones with a reservoir quality can be very useful for making decisions and support development planning. This mapping can be done through the concept of flow units. In this paper, an integrated approach including a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA), geostatistical modeling and uncertainty analysis is developed and applied to a fractured carbonate in order to integrate on numerical simulation. The workflow begins with different HCA methods, performed to well-logs in three wells, to identify flow units and rock types. Geostatistical techniques are then applied to extend the flow units, petrophysical properties and fractures into the inter-well area. Finally, uncertainty analysis is applied to combine different types of uncertainties for generating ensemble reservoir simulation models. The obtained clusters from different HCA methods are evaluated by the cophenetic coefficient, correlation coefficient, and variation coefficient, and the most appropriate clustering method is used to identify flow units for geostatistical modeling. We subsequently define uncertainties for static and dynamic properties such as permeability, porosity, net-to-gross, fracture, water-relative permeability, fluid properties, and rock compressibility. Discretized Latin Hypercube with Geostatistical (DLHG) method is applied to combine the defined uncertainties and create an ensemble of 200 simulation models which can span the uncertainty space. Eventually, a base production strategy is defined under operational conditions to check the consistency and reliability of the models created with UNISIM-II-R (reference model) as a real reservoir with known results. Results represent the compatibility of the methodology to characterize fractured reservoirs since those models are consistent with the reference model (used to generate the simulation models). The proposed workflow provides an efficient and useful means of supporting development planning under uncertainty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".