MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064004843 · doi:10.2118/2003-091

Dynamic Data Integration in Stochastic Reservoir Models

2003· article· en· W2064004843 on OpenAlexaff
Tarun Kashib, S. Amanetu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationComputer scienceDownloadData integrationProbabilistic logicOperations researchInformation retrievalData scienceData miningLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Developing geostatistical reservoir models that are geologically realistic and correctly reflect production history is important for accurately assessing the uncertainty associated with production forecasts. Conditioning reservoir models to dynamic data is challenging due to the non-linear relationship between the measured flow response data and the model parameters (porosity, permeability etc.). Recently, a novel methodology was presented to integrate geological as well as production information into reservoir models in a probabilistic manner (CIM paper 2002–125). In this paper we investigate the convergence aspects of the algorithm and propose an extension to account for multiple flow domains in a reservoir and locally varying deformation parameters. The improved methodology is validated on a complex reservoir model. Introduction Reservoir modeling is a crucial step in the development and management of petroleum reservoirs. Development decisions made during the life of a reservoir such as depletion strategy, number and location of production/injection wells, reservoir pressure maintenance schemes, etc. require an accurate model of reservoir heterogeneities and topology. In order to be able to predict future reservoir performance accurately, it is necessary to generate a reservoir model that honors all available data, accounting for the scale and precision at which they are available. The challenge is to extract the maximum possible reservoir specific information from all available data. A flow simulation on reservoir models conditioned to static data alone might not always match the field production response. These models then have to be manually adjusted to reproduce the historic data (historymatched), and this is a very tedious and time-consuming process. In the process of adjusting to "history match", the spatial covariance model that reflects the geological structure may be destroyed. Hence even after obtaining a very good match to the historical data, the model may fail to deliver accurate performance predictions. This problem could be alleviated if the historical dynamic data is integrated into the reservoir model generation step such that the final model is conditioned to all the available static data as well as the dynamic data. Since production data contains valuable information pertaining to the connectivity characteristics of the reservoir, performance predictions using the dynamically constrained reservoir model are likely to be more accurate. However, production data are related to the intrinsic characteristicsof the rock generally through a complex, non-linear transfer function and this makes the conditioning of reservoir models to production data more demanding. Data Integration - A Probabilistic Approach Recounting the methodology outlined in Kashib and Srinivasan, 2002. Consider a Markov chain (Caers, J., 1999, Goodman, R., 1999) comprising of iterative steps l,..,L such that the outcome of the indicator RV I (u) at step l is dependent only on the outcome at the previous step l. The chain is parameterized by a dynamic factor rD €[0,1] (Caers, J., 2002) that quantifies the probability of transitioning from indicator category k at step l to the category k' at step l given the historic production data. The parameterization is written as: Equation (1) (Available in full paper) Equation (2) (Available in full 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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207