Ranking Fractured Reservoir Models Using Flow Diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the application and testing of innovative dual porosity flow diagnostics to quantitatively rank large ensembles of fractured reservoir models. Flow diagnostics can approximate the dynamic response of multi-million cell models in seconds on standard hardware. The need for new faster screening methods stems from the challenge of making robust forecasts for naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs. First order uncertainties including the distribution and properties of natural fractures, matrix heterogeneity and wettability can all negatively impact on recovery. A robust multi-realisation approach to production forecasting is often rendered impractical due to the time cost for simulating many models. We have extended existing flow diagnostics techniques to dual porosity systems by accounting for the matrix-fracture exchange. New metrics combine the transfer rate with the advective time of flight in the fractures identifying risk factors for early water breakthrough and providing quantitative measures of dynamic heterogeneity. We have compared ranking a large ensemble of synthetic fractured reservoir models using dual porosity flow diagnostics and using full-physics simulation. The synthetic ensemble explores a number of different geological concepts around the fracture distributions, wettability and matrix heterogeneity which can. Not only does the flow diagnostic ranking agree well with the cumulative oil ranking the run time for the flow diagnostics is <0.25% of the total simulation time. This significant reduction in the time to compare models allows more time to spend running full physics simulation on the important and geologically diverse cases that offer the most insight.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".