MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979042937 · doi:10.1115/1.4045084

Simultaneous Interpretation of Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for a Naturally Fractured Carbonate Formation From Wireline Formation Testing

2019· article· en· W2979042937 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiangnan Liu, Daoyong Yang, Andrew Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)University of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWirelineRelative permeabilityPermeability (electromagnetism)PorosityGeologyCapillary pressureCarbonateCapillary actionMineralogyMechanicsPorous mediumGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryComposite materialEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy Resources TechnologySame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207