MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037261714 · doi:10.2118/69440-ms

Emerging Technologies in Subsurface Monitoring of Petroleum Reservoirs

2001· article· en· W2037261714 on OpenAlexaff
M. R. Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsPetroleum engineeringGeologyEnhanced oil recoveryGeophysical imagingPetroleumScale (ratio)Oil fieldPetroleum reservoirGeotechnical engineeringGeophysicsPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most oil fields do not produce more than 45% of the oil-in-place, even after enhanced oil recovery schemes have been applied. Most of this unproduced oil is missing because most displacement techniques by-pass significant portion of the original reserve. Finding this missing oil can lead to significant economic windfalls because the infrastructure for additional oil recovery is already in place and the cost of production is likely to be minimal. In this paper, all existing monitoring techniques, including 4D seismic and downhole seismic sensors, are reviewed. This is followed by a comprehensive review of emerging technologies in subsurface monitoring. These techniques include multi-well seismic, electrical resistivity tomography, electromagnetic and ultrasonic imaging, acoustic and fibre-optic imaging, as well as laser/infrared or MRI/NMR visualization near the wellbore region. A detailed analysis indicates that for an accurate reservoir engineering analysis, geostatistical models should have information of 1m scale. This is the only scale that would satisfy the representative elemental volume (REV) requirement of an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) system. This scale length is orders of magnitude higher than that of core samples and at least an order of magnitude lower than the conventional seismic data. This data gap constitutes the weakest link between geophysical information and reservoir engineering. Any attempt to reconstitute the reservoir without information regarding petrophysical properties and fluid saturations in the 1m level, one risks falling into the trap of multiple solutions – a typical problem of history matching through reservoir simulation. To obtain a resolution of 1m scale, one must investigate the possibility of using 50-2000 Hz seismic frequency range. While this seismic range cannot be used with vertical seismic profiles (VSP) because of the travelling distance constraints, multiwell imaging can be used with multi-component receivers. This system, in combination with borehole seismic sources, can provide one with the desired resolution. The same system can be used in combination with resistivity tomography, a method that has recently given satisfactory results for tracking ground-water contamination. The images can be further refined with acoustic and fibre-optic imaging techniques. These techniques can provide satisfactory details to track viscous fingering, wormholes, and other time-dependent properties of an active reservoir. Finally, infrared/laser or MRI/NMR imaging of a wellbore is still in its nascent state of development, but holds great promises for the future applications of real-time monitoring and eventual dynamic reservoir management.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering ConferenceSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207