Ozkan

Executive Editors of SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering alternate writing the Executive Summary. This issue’s summary is by Erdal Ozkan.

I would like to use some of my editorial in this issue to comment on what makes a paper a poor candidate for publication. My objective is not to discourage anyone from submitting papers for peer review; however, knowing the minimum peer-review requirements may save time for both the authors and the journals’ technical editors.

It is a fact that publishing papers brings recognition to authors and their companies. However, papers that are written with recognition as the sole drive are usually bound to quick elimination from the peer-review process. Also, the desire to write is not a sufficient condition for a publishable paper. In general, you do not work on a problem so that you can write a paper; you write a paper when your work or knowledge leads you to important results or conclusions.

The distinction between a conference presentation and a journal publication may also be a useful consideration. Some papers make interesting conference presentations but may not be appropriate for publication. Also, some conference papers are not intended for long-term, archival purposes and complete their mission once presented. For example, papers that simply inform the industry of a new product or successful application (especially those that keep the technical details confidential) are weaker candidates for journal publication. Papers discussing the success of a company-specific tool or application also may fall into this category. Similarly, papers discussing unfinished, inconclusive, or nonreproducible research cannot be considered for publication. Research papers merit publication if they present knowledge or technology that can lead to the solution of a problem.

This issue brings you eight excellent papers selected from a large pool of candidates. The first paper, by Camacho-Velazquez, Vasquez-Cruz, Castrejon-Aivar, and Arana-Ortiz, is a timely publication on the extension of pressure-transient and decline-curve analysis to naturally fractured vuggy carbonate reservoirs. The paper presents models for the cases in which the vugs may or may not contribute to primary flow in the system. Applications to synthetic and field cases demonstrate the use of the ideas presented in this paper.

The second paper, by Levitan, is an excellent work on the application of pressure/rate deconvolution to practical well tests. The paper presents the enhancements of the deconvolution algorithm presented by von Schroeter, Hollaender, and Gringarten to handle the inconsistency in the data during various flow periods. Levitan demonstrates the use of the algorithm on synthetic and field data to address the practical issues of application. This paper is a good candidate to be a classic reference in its area.

In the third paper, Fokker, Verga, and Egberts present a semianalytical model to compute the productivity of horizontal wells in fractured reservoirs. The model is capable of handling complex wells and finite-conductivity fractures.

The fourth paper of this issue is by Will, Archer, and Dershowitz. This paper proposes a method to integrate seismic-anisotropy and reservoir-performance data into the characterization of naturally fractured reservoirs. A preconditioned, discrete-fracture model is used as the basis for forward modeling of elastic and hydraulic properties of the fracture system.

Perez, Datta-Gupta, and Mishra discuss the role of electrofacies, lithofacies, and hydraulic flow units in permeability prediction from well logs in the fifth paper of this issue. They explain the power of classification-tree analysis for the classification and partitioning of permeability data from well logs.

The sixth paper of this issue is by Smith, Sams, Bromhal, Jikich, and Ertekin and deals with the effects of permeability anisotropy and coal properties on enhanced-coalbed-methane production from coal seams by carbon dioxide injection. The paper first introduces the simulation of coalbed-methane production under carbon dioxide injection conditions and then discusses the findings of the simulation study in terms of the sensitivity of coalbed-methane production to various system properties.

The seventh paper is a case study by O’Dell and Lamers that discusses the subsurface uncertainty management in the Harweel Cluster, South Oman. The paper documents a structured, scenario-based approach to analyzing and assessing all potential factors influencing the recovery schemes, reserves, and productivity.

Shi and Durucan discuss the implementation of a bidisperse pore-diffusion model in a coalbed reservoir simulator in the last paper of this issue. In the bidisperse pore-diffusion model, gas adsorption takes place in the micropores that account for approximately 95% of the internal coal surface. The macropores provide up to 70% of the total storage capacity for the free gas and also provide the tortuous path for gas transport from the micropores to the cleats.

I hope you enjoy reading these papers as much as I did.

Erdal Ozkan