MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056186719 · doi:10.2118/87339-pa

Coupled Geomechanics and Reservoir Simulation

2003· article· en· W2056186719 on OpenAlex

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 Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersConocoPhillips
KeywordsGeomechanicsReservoir simulationField (mathematics)Computer scienceScale (ratio)GeologyPetroleum engineeringComputational scienceGeotechnical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary An iterative procedure is presented in this paper to couple geomechanics and reservoir simulation models for the simulation of weaker rock formations with complex constitutive behavior. Parallel computing is employed in the coupled model to reduce run time in the compute intensive geomechanics model. The procedures developed here are general, and can be applied to any reservoir simulation and geomechanics model. Field and example problems under a variety of exploitation scenarios are presented to demonstrate the utility and robust nature of the coupled model. For example, a large-scale field case was simulated using the coupled model with 16 processors for the geomechanics model. The total CPU time for a 30-year simulation run was approximately 2 hours. These results indicate that it is both economical and practical to use the proposed procedure and parallel computing for analyzing field-scale problems that integrate reservoir and geomechanics simulation.

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)0.000
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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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