Simultaneous Interpretation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for a Tight Carbonate Reservoir From Wireline Formation Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, techniques have been developed to interpret three-phase relative permeability and water–oil capillary pressure simultaneously in a tight carbonate reservoir from numerically simulating wireline formation tester (WFT) measurements. A high-resolution cylindrical near-wellbore model is built based on a set of pressures and flow rates collected by dual packer WFT in a tight carbonate reservoir. The grid quality is validated, the effective thickness of the WFT measurements is examined, and the effectiveness of the techniques is confirmed prior to performing history matching for both the measured pressure drawdown and buildup profiles. Water–oil relative permeability, oil–gas relative permeability, and water–oil capillary pressure are interpreted based on power-law functions and under the assumption of a water-wet reservoir and an oil-wet reservoir, respectively. Subsequently, three-phase relative permeability for the oil phase is determined using the modified Stone II model. Both the relative permeability and the capillary pressure of a water–oil system interpreted under an oil-wet condition match well with the measured relative permeability and capillary pressure of a similar reservoir rock type collected from the literature, while the relative permeability of an oil–gas system and the three-phase relative permeability bear a relatively high uncertainty. Not only is the reservoir determined as oil-wet but also the initial oil saturation is found to impose an impact on the interpreted water relative permeability under an oil-wet condition. Changes in water and oil viscosities and mud filtrate invasion depth affect the range of the movable fluid saturation of the interpreted water–oil relative permeabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".