MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954514997 · doi:10.1144/petgeo2018-136

Flow diagnostics for naturally fractured reservoirs

2019· article· en· W2954514997 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Victoria Spooner, S. Geiger, Daniel Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenuePetroleum Geoscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEnergi SimulationHeriot-Watt University
KeywordsEnvironmental geologyRegional geologyGeologyPetroleum engineeringEconomic geologyPermeability (electromagnetism)Reservoir engineeringReservoir simulationFluid dynamicsComputer scienceVolcanismMechanicsTectonicsPetroleumSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable production forecasting for fractured carbonate reservoirs is a challenge. Natural fractures, adverse wettability and complex matrix heterogeneity are all uncertain and can all negatively impact upon recovery. Ideally, we should consider different reservoir concepts encapsulated in a large ensemble of reservoir models to quantify the impact of these and other geological uncertainties on reservoir performance. However, the computational cost of considering many scenarios can be significant, especially for dual porosity/permeability models, rendering robust uncertainty quantification impractical for most asset teams. Flow diagnostics provide a complement to full-physics simulations for comparing models. Flow diagnostics approximate the dynamic response of the reservoir in seconds. In this paper we describe the extension of flow diagnostics to dual porosity models for naturally fractured reservoirs. Our new diagnostic tools link the advective time of flight in the fractures to the transfer from the matrix, identifying regions where transfer and flux are not in balance leading to poor matrix oil sweep and early breakthrough. Our new diagnostics tools have been applied to a real field case and are shown to compare well with full-physics simulation results. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Naturally Fractured Reservoirs collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/naturally-fractured-reservoirs

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePetroleum GeoscienceSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207