MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4245819685 · doi:10.2523/78996-ms

Automatic Determination of Well Placement Subject to Geostatistical and Economic Constraints

2002· article· en· W4245819685 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Karl Norrena, Clayton V. Deutsch

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPetrophysicsCitationSubject (documents)Library scienceComputer scienceOperations researchGeologyEngineeringPorosityGeotechnical engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Automatic Determination of Well Placement Subject to Geostatistical and Economic Constraints Karl P. Norrena; Karl P. Norrena University of Alberta Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Clayton V. Deutsch Clayton V. Deutsch University of Alberta Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 2002. Paper Number: SPE-78996-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/78996-MS Published: November 04 2002 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Norrena, Karl P., and Clayton V. Deutsch. "Automatic Determination of Well Placement Subject to Geostatistical and Economic Constraints." Paper presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/78996-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium Search Advanced Search AbstractOptimal well placement is a complex problem that requires detailed models of the reservoir structure/geometry and the petrophysical properties such as facies, porosity, permeability, and fluid saturation. The reservoir development team attempts to integrate all of these aspects when devising a well plan for optimal reservoir exploitation. Ideally the well locations would be selected with the assistance of a flow simulator; however, this is impractical due to time and CPU requirements. This paper presents a technique for selecting optimal well locations for fine-tuning with a flow simulator. The technique constructs the well placement problem as an optimization problem to be solved with simulated annealing. The global objective function consists of multiple component objective functions. Each component represents a desirable feature or constraint in the problem. Optimality is defined as the best balance among the component objectives. The format of the technique is flexible and can incorporate 3-D geostatistical models of uncertainty and multiple constraints. The proposed method iteratively refines initial well locations and trajectories until the global objective is maximized. Several examples are shown. Optimal well placement in a steam assisted gravity drainage context is illustrated.IntroductionOne task of a reservoir development team is to set a well plan that, given all available information, is reasonable. A well plan is set with the help of a reservoir model. A reservoir model highlights candidate regions for well placement. This initial well plan is static because it does not account for the dynamics of fluid flow. The static well plan is adjusted to a dynamic well plan with the aid of a flow simulator. The process is iterative. This process can be expensive in terms of professional and CPU time. Selecting good static well plans is important because it will reduce the iterations required and lead to better decisions.Assembling a good static well plan is difficult due to heterogeneities and uncertainties in the subsurface reservoir parameters. Accounting for this information in a decision-making framework is the subject of this paper. Various approaches have been proposed including optimization techniques such as mixed integer programming and neural networks1,2. Integer programming requires the objective function to be expressed as a linear function, and neural networks require training and a library of training images. One common technique for accounting for uncertainty involves selecting the P05, P50, P95 realizations and selecting a well plan that is jointly optimal on these using a flow simulator. This approach is impractical in most cases due to the number of possible well locations and the computational expense required for evaluating the realizations.This paper proposes a technique for selecting a good static well plan. The problem is posed as an optimization problem for simulated annealing. Simulated annealing is an optimization routine particularly well suited to optimizing highly combinatorial problems such as the problem of selecting well locations. Consider the placement of two wells on a 2-D reservoir model on a 50 x 50 grid. If the reservoir development team were to exhaustively evaluate every location on the grid there are many combinations:Selecting well locations with respect to uncertainty would require L·C22500 evaluations, where L is the number of realizations. In practice a reservoir model may have a grid size of millions of cells and hundreds of realizations. The combinatorial becomes incomprehensible in size. Keywords: objective function, reservoir model, alignment, component objective function, reservoir characterization, alberta, placement, well location, spe ps-cim choa 78996, well plan Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Geologic modeling This content is only available via PDF. 2002. SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,004

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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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.

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

Citations14
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207