MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2462540165 · doi:10.2118/0715-0081-jpt

Rapid Reservoir Modeling: Prototyping With an Intuitive, Sketch-Based Interface

2015· article· en· W2462540165 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Wilson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReservoir simulationDiagenesisGeologySketchComputer scienceInterface (matter)Petroleum engineeringMineralogyAlgorithm

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article, written by Special Publications Editor Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 173237, “Rapid Reservoir Modeling: Prototyping of Reservoir Models, Well Trajectories, and Development Options With an Intuitive, Sketch-Based Interface,” by M.D. Jackson, SPE, G.J. Hampson, and D. Rood, Imperial College London; S. Geiger, SPE, and Z. Zhang, Heriot-Watt University; M.C. Sousa, SPE, R. Amorim, E. Vital Brazil, and F.F. Samavati, University of Calgary; and L.N. Guimaraes, SPE, University of Pernambuco, prepared for the 2015 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 23–25 February. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Constructing and refining complex reservoir models are challenging and time-consuming tasks that entail a high degree of uncertainty. Conventional modeling work flows have remained essentially unchanged for the past decade. Such work flows are poorly suited to rapid prototyping of a range of reservoirmodel concepts, well trajectories, and development options and to testing of how these might affect reservoir behavior. A new reservoir-modeling and -simulation approach, termed rapid reservoir modeling (RRM), allows such prototyping and complements existing work flows. Introduction Hydrocarbon reservoirs typically contain an array of complex geologic heterogeneities that are at or below the resolution of seismic data, so their geometry and spatial distribution are uncertain. These heterogeneities may be structural, stratigraphic, sedimentologic, or diagenetic in origin and often affect flow behavior and hydrocarbon recovery; hence, they must be captured in reservoir models. Reservoir-modeling work flows have remained essentially unchanged for the past decade, facilitated by commercially available software packages. These work flows begin with the construction of a geocellular reservoir model, in which a largely deterministic structural and stratigraphic framework is used to define the overall reservoir volume, and compartments and zones within the reservoir. A grid is then constructed within each zone, typically using pillars that are continuous from the top to the base of the modeled volume, and using layers that may vary in thickness or be truncated by reservoir-zone boundaries. Geostatistical methods are used to populate each grid cell with a geologic indicator (such as facies or rock type) and associated petrophysical properties. The resulting models typically contain several millions to tens of millions of cells and may be upscaled onto a coarser grid before flow simulation. Despite its wide use, there are a number of shortcomings with this work flow, including Conventional modeling workflows are slow, often requiring many months from the development of initial model concepts to flow simulation or other outputs. Conceptual geologic models become fixed early in the modeling process, with uncertainty explored using geostatistical methods within the framework of a single conceptual model, rather than across a range of possible geologic concepts. It is difficult or impossible to explore rapidly a range of conceptual models, well trajectories, and development options and test how these might affect reservoir behavior. The introduction of pillar grids early in the modeling workflow limits the spatial resolution of the model and the complexity of the geologic architectures that can be captured and focuses modeling efforts on population of gridblocks with rock properties by use of geostatistical modeling methods. Geostatistical methods are often nonintuitive and require inputs that are not closely linked to the underlying geologic concept, so it can be difficult for the geologist to create a digital version of the model concept. Integration across different disciplines is made more difficult by the use of different software tools and by different model grid types and resolutions. The aim of this work is to develop RRM software for prototyping of complex reservoir models, well trajectories, and development options by means of novel, sketch-based interaction and modeling coupled with exploratory visualization and close-to-real-time numerical analysis. The new approach does not replace existing work flows; rather, it supplements them by allowing rapid testing of geologic and development concepts and how these affect reservoir behavior.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,361
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,635

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207