MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023794621 · doi:10.2118/68839-ms

Simulation Based Dimensionless Type Curves for Predicting Waterflood Recovery

2001· article· en· W2023794621 on OpenAlexaff
M. D. Dunn, Godwin A. Chukwu

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Western Regional Meeting · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsPhoenix Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)Dimensionless quantityReservoir simulationField (mathematics)Ranking (information retrieval)DiscretizationPetroleum engineeringGeologyMachine learningMathematicsEngineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting waterflood recovery with simulation based dimensionless performance curves has advantages over the more traditional approaches in certain applications. This paper discusses the advantages of the type curve approach, how the curves are created, and how they can be applied to predict pattern and full-field performance. This technique is suitable for screening/ranking projects, and is particularly helpful when sensitivity and uncertainty analyses are necessary to improve reservoir management decisions. The dimensionless type curve methodology can be applied to many types of fields. A case study of a large, waterflooded field is presented to show how the curves are created and how they can be applied. In this field, a study of the geology and stratigraphy indicated that reservoir continuity, permeability variance, and effects of faulting were the most important drivers of recovery efficiency. Simulations were performed on 45 datasets to describe waterflood performance over the range of variation. A spreadsheet program was created to predict recovery of any description, based on interpolations of the simulation results. The dimensionless curves can be used to compare actual well performance to predicted performance, to predict full-field performance by summing well curves, and/or as the basis of an integrated evaluation tool. Using correlations to predict recoveries allows for ease of sensitivity analyses, and ease of application by casual users in an organization. This paper should benefit anyone who struggles with the task of applying simulation-based knowledge to everyday decisions when optimizing waterflood recovery.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Western Regional MeetingSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207