MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996411122 · doi:10.2118/165573-pa

Optimization of Drainage-Area Configurations To Maximize Recovery From SAGD Operations

2013· article· en· W1996411122 on OpenAlexaff
Johnathan G. Manchuk, Clayton V. Deutsch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrainageSteam-assisted gravity drainageComputationPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceAsphaltMathematical optimizationGeologyAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Placement of steam-assisted-gravity-drainage (SAGD) surface production pads and subsurface drainage areas in the McMurray formation to maximize the economic potential of an area is a challenging problem. The location of surface pads (SPs) and drainage areas has a large impact on their production performance because of several factors, including variation of bitumen in place, variation of the reservoir base surface, vertical conformance, areal conformance, interaction between different drainage areas and pads, and surface hazards. An optimization algorithm is presented to determine the positions and orientations of SPs and drainage areas over a reservoir area; therefore, the potential for economically recoverable bitumen is maximized. The optimization considers either a deterministic model of the relevant properties or multiple realizations to account for uncertainty. Optimization considers all drainage areas simultaneously to ensure joint optimality of an entire set. The algorithm is demonstrated using two realistic examples that show a significant improvement in potential recovery. The algorithm executes in a reasonable amount of computation time, considering the complexity of the problem.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207