Quantifying the partial penetration skin factor for evaluating the completion efficiency of vertical oil wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An oil well's productivity is generally considered the standard measure of the well's performance. However, productivity depends on several factors, including fluid characteristics, formation damage, the reservoir's formation, and the kind of completion the well undergoes. How a partial completion can affect a well's performance will be investigated in detail in this study, as nearly every vertical well is only partially completed as a result of gas cap or water coning issues. Partially penetrated wells typically experience a larger pressure drop of fluid flow caused by restricted regions, thus increasing the skin factor. A major challenge for engineers when developing completion designs or optimizing skin factor variables is devising and testing suitable partial penetration skin and comparing completion options. Several researchers have studied and calculated a partial penetration skin factor, but some of their results tend to be inaccurate and cause excessive errors. The present work proposes experimental work and a numerical simulation model for accurate estimation of the pseudo-skin factor for partially penetrated wells. The work developed a simple correlation for predicting the partial penetration skin factor for perforated vertical wells. The work also compared the results from available models that are widely accepted by the industry as a basis for gauging the accuracy of the new correlation in estimating the skin factor. Compared to other approaches, the novel correlation performs well by providing estimates for the partial penetration skin factor that are relatively close to those obtained by the tested models. This work's main contribution is the presentation of a novel correlation that simplifies the estimation of the partial penetration skin factor in partially completed vertical wells.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".