A Theoretical and Numerical Investigationof the Pseudoskin Factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Partial Completion of wells to inhibit gas and/or water coning in producing wells has been a common practice in the petroleum industry for many years. This procedure however causes an additional pressure drop or pseudoskin that reduces the well productivity. In formations that are producing with partial completion the precise quantification of this additional pressure drop is of paramount importance for completely identify the existence of formation damage. Many authors have proposed mathematical solutions that can be used to estimate the pseudoskin factor caused by restricted entry. In this work a comprehensive investigation of the available models listed in the literature used for the estimative of pseudoskin due to restricted entry was performed. Selected models were implemented in a methodology and computer program. Then, a sensitivity analysis focusing on producing wells was carried out. The effect of the height of the producing interval, height from the middle portion of the producing interval to the bottom of the reservoir, reservoir thickness, horizontal and vertical permeabilities and wellbore radius were investigated. Furthermore, the extension of the methodology for the determination of mechanical skin in injectivity and falloff tests executed in injector wells is described. At the end, an example highlights the range of applicability and potential benefits of the proposed methodology. Introduction It is very frequent that wells are completed over only afraction of their productive zone in order to delay water and/or gas coning. A well completed in this manner is referred to as a partially penetrating or restricted-entry well. Two questions of practical importance in this scenario are (a) what is the productivity loss caused by the partial penetration and (b) should the well be stimulated. The answer to these questions requires the estimative of the pseudo-skin factor caused by the partial penetration and the mechanical (real) skin caused by formation damage or stimulation. In this work a comprehensive investigation of the available models listed in the literature used for the estimative of pseudoskin due to restricted entry was performed. A methodology and computer code was established that given the relative position of the perforated interval with respect to the producing zone and the values of vertical and horizontal permeability, the pseudoskin (dimensionless pressure drop) due to the restricted entry is computed. Five selected formulas: Streltsova(1), Kuchuk-Kirwan(2), Papatzacos(3), Yeh-Reynolds(4) and Odeh(5) were studied. The assumptions, simplifications and range of validity associated with each formula are presented. All the pseudoskin formulas used in this work assume the single phase of a fluid with small compressibility and constant viscosity. The reservoir is considered homogeneous and isotropic, with constant thickness and infinite extension. The reservoir top and base are considered impermeable. The gravitational effects are considered negligible. Considering all these assumptions, the total skin obtained from a well test interpretation is given by (Equation 1.) (Available in full paper) where St, Sp and S represents, respectively, the total skin obtained from the interpretation, the pseudoskin due to the partial completion and the mechanical skin due to formation damage.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".