The impact of isothermal flow assumption on accuracy of pressure transient analysis results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adiabatic expansion and viscous dissipation of fluid flow in porous media result in considerable heating or cooling of hydrocarbon fluids when pressure gradients are very large. Traditionally, fluid flow in porous media has been assumed isothermal in hydrocarbon reservoirs. While this assumption helps with simplifying the physics of fluid flow by neglecting the thermal effects, it imposes a dominant impact on fluid properties in situations where flow undergoes fast paced and abrupt changes in flow rate and or pressure. The analytical solutions of fluid flow for pressure transient analysis rely on the isothermal flow assumption. Since the variations of fluid properties are not accounted for in temperature fluctuations, there is an inherent error in standard methods of well test analysis. In this paper, the errors in pressure transient analysis as a consequence of the assumption of isothermal fluid flow are investigated. The magnitude of error is quantified as a function of flow rate and pressure drop. Error analysis shows that at higher flow rates, the thermal impacts are elevated such that the application of isothermal flow models becomes erroneous and invalid. It can be shown that oil well tests are more influenced by thermal effects compared to gas well tests in conventional dry gas reservoirs. This study highlights an important thermal impact that is often neglected and should be considered in the design, execution, and analysis stages of well testing. Also, it suggests that isothermal analytical models should be avoided for well test analysis with large flow rates.
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 | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".