Evaluation of Development Performance and Adjustment Strategies for High Water-Cut Reservoirs Based on Flow Diagnostics: Application in the QHD Oilfield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offshore reservoirs in the high water-cut stage present significant development challenges, including declining production, complex remaining oil distribution, and the inadequacy of conventional evaluation methods to capture intricate flow dynamics. To overcome these limitations, this study introduces a novel approach based on flow diagnostics for performance evaluation and potential adjustment. The method integrates key metrics such as time-of-flight (TOF) and the dynamic Lorenz coefficient, supported by reservoir engineering principles and numerical simulation, to construct a multi-parameter evaluation system. This system, which also incorporates injection–production communication volume and inter-well fluid allocation factors, precisely quantifies and visualizes waterflood displacement processes and sweep efficiency. Applied to the QHD32 oilfield, this framework was used to establish specific thresholds for operational adjustments. These include criteria for infill drilling (waterflooded ratio < 45%, remaining oil thickness > 6 m, TOF > 200 days), conformance control (TOF < 50 days, dynamic Lorenz coefficient > 0.5), and artificial lift optimization (remaining oil thickness ratio > 2/3, TOF > 200 days). Field validation confirmed the efficacy of this approach: an additional cumulative oil production of 165,600 m3 was achieved from infill drilling in the C29 well group, while displacement adjustments in the B03 well group increased oil production by 2.2–3.8 tons/day, demonstrating a significant enhancement in waterflooding performance. This research provides a theoretical foundation and a technical pathway for the refined development of offshore heavy oil reservoirs at the ultra-high water-cut stage, offering a robust framework for the sustainable management of analogous reservoirs worldwide.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".