Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well deliverability optimization is essential for oil and gas production and nodal analysis is a common tool used for selecting suitable production parameters. To accurately calculate upstream and downstream pressures at various production rates at a certain selected node, proper modeling of multiphase flow in wellbores is necessary. However, this process is complex due to the inconsistent velocities of the fluids (i.e., oil, gas, and water) and the interaction between the liquids under high temperature and pressure. Empirical models, such as Hagedorn and Brown (1965), Beggs and Brill (1973), and Mukherjee and Brill (1983 and 1985), and the drift-flux model (Zuber 1965) are commonly used for multiphase flow calculations in wellbores. In this paper, we programmed and evaluated three multiphase flow models (Hagedorn-Brown, Mukherjee-Brill, and drift-flux) using Matlab. The programming includes holdup calculation, pressure gradient calculation, pressure traverse calculation, inflow curve determination, inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve determination, and well deliverability determination. Additionally, we conducted a case study to examine the sensitivity of parameters and compare and analyze the results of pressure traverse, tubing intake curve, and deliverability determination between the drift-flux and Mukherjee-Brill models. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on two of the seven parameters in the drift-flux model, and the effects of production and reservoir parameters on well deliverability were analyzed. The case study results indicated that the Mukherjee-Brill model predicted slightly higher bottomhole pressure compared to the drift-flux model at a fixed oil flow rate, but its well deliverability determination was lower. Furthermore, the drift-flux model showed that the pressure increased with an increase in the distribution coefficient for bubble flow (C0_bubble), while the beta parameter had little impact on the calculated pressure in the studied range. The well deliverability increased when the tubing size and reservoir pressure increased, or the tubing head pressure decreased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".