MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2955088525 · doi:10.2118/0719-0043-jpt

Technology Focus: Simulation (July 2019)

2019· article· en· W2955088525 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
William J. Bailey

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScope (computer science)RealmFocus (optics)Computer scienceData scienceWork (physics)Field (mathematics)Operations researchEngineeringPolitical scienceMechanical engineeringLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Technology Focus The original realm of this Technology Focus was reservoir simulation, but the scope has been expanded to include all simulation. This is, indeed, a broad sweep, and I fear that I may not be able to do full justice to technical domains in which I am not fully conversant. Nonetheless, muddling through, I have selected three papers with reasonably broad coverage. The one I particularly like describes an open-source 3D-printing micromodel tool kit. This highlights the need to validate simulation through experimental observation, and the work provides a practical means to do so. This will be my last editorial (it has been 6 years now), and I leave you with two main thoughts, one positive and one less so. My optimistic remark concerns the advances I have observed in the field of simulation of complex reservoirs, especially fracturing of tight reservoirs. While the topic remains challenging, the advances made have been quite significant over the past 5 years. Nonetheless, in my view, we still do not possess a full understanding of oil production in unconventional fractured reservoirs. Our ability to forecast such assets remains elusive, even with copious amounts of analytics, mountains of data, and an arsenal of machine-learning tools. We still cannot ascribe the level of confidence to such assets as we wish would be possible. More fundamental experimental investigation is necessary here, and, while we are gradually increasing our understanding, the journey has some way to go. My final comment concerns buttons. Specifically, I refer to these so-called big green “simulate” buttons: the ones that entice a user to blindly “press it, and for-get it” (with apologies to Ron Popeil). Well-crafted, user-experience-optimized, appealingly designed interfaces are now standard. Nothing new in that. Nonetheless, I cannot help but feel that, rather than assisting the engineer, such interfaces form a metaphorical barrier between the user and the simulation engine. I am of the generation that was quite happy navigating large keyword-driven ASCII files with the “vi” editor (remember that?). While these were awkward, slow, and often excruciatingly painful to operate, being forced to work directly with keywords and ASCII files yields one very significant advantage: an unavoidable and direct connection with the data. One had no choice but to become acquainted with all aspects of an important keyword and its input requirements. This ensured consistency of data input and facilitated a closer bond between user and simulator (greater transparency of what was going on under the hood). Being unashamedly old school, I feel that “optimized user-interface (UI) dashboards” often cast a misty veil over human/machine connectedness and sometimes may even impede the pathway to understanding of simulation behavior and the solution itself. My point here is this: Do not hesitate to dive into the files typically generated by these UIs and be unafraid to be old school, even if only for a few moments. The insight this affords is well worth the effort. Saying this, I am clearly showing my age, so it’s time for a fresh face to take over this editorial. I thank you for your patience over the past few years. Meanwhile, I feel an overwhelming urge to write another technical paper (that no one will read), written in TeX and coded in FORTRAN77, using my trusty “vi” editor—happiness awaits. Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org. SPE 191213 Application of Memory Formalism and Fractional Derivative in Reservoir Simulation by Mahamudul Hashan, Memorial University of Newfoundland, et al. SPE 193880 A Massively Parallel Algebraic Multiscale Solver for Reservoir Simulation on the GPU Architecture by A.M. Manea, Saudi Aramco, et al. SPE 193844 A Bayesian Sampling Framework With Seismic Priors for Data Assimilation and Uncertainty Quantification by Siavash Nejadi, University of Calgary, et al.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,569
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,615

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0100,007
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,5690,459

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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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