Simultaneous Interpretation of Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for a Naturally Fractured Carbonate Formation From Wireline Formation Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, pragmatic and robust techniques have been developed to simultaneously interpret absolute permeability and relative permeability together with capillary pressure in a naturally fractured carbonate formation from wireline formation testing (WFT) measurements. By using two sets of pressure and flow rate field data collected by a dual-packer tool, two high-resolution cylindrical near-wellbore numerical models are developed for each dataset on the basis of single- and dual-porosity concepts. Then, simulations and history matchings are performed for both the measured pressure drawdown and buildup profiles, while absolute permeability is determined and relative permeability is interpreted with and without considering capillary pressure. Compared to the experimentally measured relative permeability curves for the same formation collected from the literature, relative permeability interpreted with consideration of capillary pressure has a better match than those without considering capillary pressure. Also, relative permeability obtained from dual-porosity models has similar characteristics to those from single-porosity models especially in the region away from the endpoints, though the computational expenses with dual-porosity models are much larger. Absolute permeabilities in the vertical and the horizontal directions of the upper layer are determined to be 201.0 mD and 86.4 mD, respectively, while those of the lower layer are found to be 342.9 mD and 1.8 mD, respectively. Such a large vertical permeability of the lower layer reflects the contribution of the extensively distributed natural fractures in the vertical direction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".