MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056011333 · doi:10.2118/2009-131

Heavy Oil Viscosity Prediction Using Surface Response Methodology

2009· article· en· W2056011333 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farid Ahmadloo, K. Asghari, M. Masehi Araghi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosityResponse surface methodologyComputer scienceOil viscosityPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeologyMachine learningComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modern petroleum engineering practices require accurate reservoir phase behavior properties to simulate and optimize various production and processing operations. Among these reservoir fluid properties, viscosity is an important property during the design of pipelines, production and processing equipment, well testing, and reservoir simulation. Direct viscosity measurement of the reservoir fluid requires representative reservoir fluid sampling that is expensive and often unavailable. Therefore, common procedure in industry is using developed correlations to predict the viscosity of the crudes. However, the major shortcomings of these correlations lie in their extremely simplistic or complex nature that reduces their applicability. In addition, commonly used correlations in industry were developed on the basis of data from special regions of the world that limit their applications as a universal approach for viscosity estimation. In this study, the main objective is developing a simple and efficient approach for prediction of medium to heavy oil viscosity by using Response Surface Methodology technique. For this purpose two datasets, 45 phase behavior data of medium to heavy crudes (12-25 °API) from Alberta and Saskatchewan and 110 data points from literature(6-22 °API), have been used during training, testing, and validation processes. The obtained results in this study indicate that the response surface methodology approach is successful in prediction of dead, live, and under-saturated crude viscosities over the range of data used for training process. In other words it can be safely concluded that response surface methodology can be used as an efficient tool for prediction of viscosity in the medium to heavy range of western Canadian crudes. Introduction Simulation and optimization of crude oil production and processing require proper understanding of reservoir fluid phase behavior. Among these properties crude oil viscosity is considered as one of the most important characteristics of reservoir fluid that controls fluid flow in porous media and influences the design of downhole and surface facilities and transportation systems. The routine practice in industry is fluid sampling from the reservoir and using laboratory measured viscosity values for various design purposes. However, there are cases where such direct measurements are not available. Therefore, as a common approach the PVT correlations are applied to predict the crude oil properties. Fundamentally, there are two approaches for crude oil viscosity predictions. The first approach uses oilfield data, such as reservoir temperature, produced oil API gravity, solution gas-oil ratio, to predict the oil viscosity (Beal [1], Glaso [2], and Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt [3]). The second approach is empirical and/or semi-empirical correlations that are using other data for prediction of crude oil viscosity, such as reservoir fluid composition, pour point temperature, normal boiling point, critical temperature, and acentric factor of components (Lorenz et al. [4] Little and Kennedy [5], and Pederson et al. [6]). These correlations are either generated by using random data sets or phase behavior data from specific geographical areas or specific class/type of oils. The major shortcomings of these correlations lie in their extremely simplistic or complex nature that reduces their applicability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207