MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052430502 · doi:10.2118/170053-ms

An Integrated Approach to Building History-Matched Geomodels to Understand Complex Long Lake Oil Sands Reservoirs, Part 2: Simulation

2014· article· en· W2052430502 on OpenAlex
Seyed Ali Feizabadi, Xingquan Kevin Zhang, Peter Yang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReservoir simulationPetroleum engineeringReservoir engineeringProcess (computing)Reservoir modelingMatching (statistics)Computer scienceProduction (economics)Simulation modelingEngineering geologyOil productionGeologyRelation (database)PetroleumData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Simulation is one of the most important and powerful reservoir engineering tools for understanding reservoir performance, devising operating strategies, and solving production problems. Simple homogeneous models are suitable for understanding basic reservoir engineering parameters and for simple sensitivity analyses. However in real reservoirs with heterogeneities such as at Nexen Long Lake, a comprehensive geomodel which includes all the available geology and geophysics knowledge is necessary in order to extract the greatest value from the simulation efforts. A geomodel is representative of the real reservoir if simulation of the geomodel is able to reproduce the production history of the reservoir (history matching). For a typical SAGD pad, the parameters to be matched include the injection and production rates, downhole injection pressures, and pressure and temperature of observation wells. Based on our experience, for this process to be effective and reasonably timely a team consisting of the geologist, geophysicist, geomodeler, production and reservoir / simulation engineer must work interactively and in an iterative, "trial and error" fashion. The geomodelling part is presented in Part 1(10), of this paper and in Part 2 the simulation results are reviewed. The simulation process can be divided into three main parts - history matching, sensitivity analysis and forecasting. Once the history matching part is done, the geomodel is ready to be used for the other two parts. High water saturation zones, also referred to as lean zones and top water, play an important role in different stages of a SAGD project. A detailed strategy is necessary to deal with them and to optimize the production. Simulation results show that one needs to be able to increase the total fluid rate and solve the sub-cool limitations at the time of contact with these lean zones. The STARS thermal simulator from Computer Modeling Group (CMG) was used to do all the reservoir simulations in this paper.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.202 · 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