MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569032398

Improved Methods For Estimating The Viscosity Of Heavy Oils From Magnetic Resonance Data

2008· article· en· W1569032398 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren M. Burcaw, Robert Kleinberg, J. Bryan, Apostolos Kantzas, Yuesheng Cheng, Abdel M. Kharrat, R. Badry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosityRheologyOil viscosityAPI gravityLight crude oilPorosityViscosity indexMaterials scienceMineralogyPetroleum engineeringChemistryGeologyComposite materialCrude oil
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Borehole magnetic resonance (MR) is routinely used to estimate the viscosity of light oil, even when it is mixed with water in the pore space of reservoir rock. However light oil methods are inadequate when oil viscosity is above several thousand mPa-s. There have been a number of publications relating magnetic resonance measurements to heavy oil viscosity, but the correlations proposed have not been found to be universally applicable. MR measurements of heavy oil depend not only on the properties of the oil, but also on the details of data acquisition and processing. Thus MR-viscosity correlations must be customized accordingly. Moreover, when water and oil MR signals overlap, new methods are required to prevent the presence of water from corrupting the MR estimation of oil viscosity. Using laboratory measurements on a large number of Canadian and international heavy oil samples, we have developed new correlations, the coefficients of which depend on tool hardware, acquisition modes, and processing algorithms. These are demonstrated to be useful from 10 mPa-s to 1,000,000 mPa-s or more. We also introduce the partitioned hydrogen index method, which uses a porosity model and a new correlation technique to estimate oil viscosity. This is applicable to formations with significant quantities of water. Using MR and rheological measurements over the range 10°C to 100°C, we find the only effects of temperature are through the routine Curie law correction and the effect of temperature on viscosity itself. Magnetic resonanceviscosity correlations do not require explicit temperature dependence. INTRODUCTION Vast quantities of heavy oil exist in many parts of the world. Production economics depends on several factors, one of the most important of which is oil viscosity. Heavy oil reservoirs may contain several grades of oil. For example, a reservoir might be composed of stacked porous beds separated by impermeable layers. Each bed can contain oil with properties different from the oils in adjacent beds. Moreover, viscosity can vary vertically within a single bed. Borehole logging tools are the most accurate and costeffective means of determining properties of fluids found in subsurface geological formations. Borehole magnetic resonance (MR) is routinely used to estimate the viscosity of light oil, even when it is mixed with water in the pore space of reservoir rock. However, commonly employed MR methods are inadequate when applied to heavy oil. The results of MR measurements of heavy oil depend not only on the properties of the oil, but also on tool characteristics and the details of data acquisition and processing. Thus MR-viscosity correlations must be customized for each borehole logging tool and each mode of employment of any given logging tool. Although the relaxation time distribution is a ubiquitous and useful feature of MR log interpretation, its details can be influenced by processing parameters such as the regularization parameter or the lower and upper bounds of the distribution, T2min and T2max. Use of time domain data avoids these issues. A new correlation uses the initial decay rate of an MR echo train to estimate oil viscosity. W SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207