MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981146104 · doi:10.2118/89338-ms

A Study of IOR by CO2 Injection in the Gullfaks Field, Offshore Norway

2004· article· en· W1981146104 on OpenAlexaff
Hafsteinn Agustsson, George Grinestaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineWorkflowComputer scienceScalingReservoir simulationScale (ratio)TRACERField (mathematics)Flexibility (engineering)SimulationPetroleum engineeringGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the feasibility study of a large-scale miscible CO2-WAG (MWAG) injection scheme in the Gullfaks Field, offshore Norway. We describe the reservoir engineering workflow and simulation techniques, the predicted production and injection profiles, and the main infrastructure solutions under consideration. Compositional cross-section models and recently available streamline-tracer simulation techniques are employed to scale up from element models to a fast, full-field simulator with a high degree of flexibility. The starting point for the workflow is a set of black oil and streamline front tracking models, history matched on coarse and fine grids. A fast, finely gridded streamline model is used to identify the MWAG injection targets, define injection well locations and completion strategy. Fine gridded cross-sections are extracted and used in a compositional simulator to study and quantify the miscible displacement process. These are the used to derive scaling parameters used in a simple, ultra-fast streamline-tracer model, scaling the MWAG process up to field level. The streamline-tracer model interactively optimises solvent allocation and generates production predictions on a well-by-well basis. Water flood recovery and incremental IOR are predicted simultaneously in a single simulation run. In addition, the general economic limitations and example technical solutions for implementation of a CO2 MWAG on the Gullfaks Field are briefly described.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil RecoverySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207