MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077368152 · doi:10.2118/165511-pa

A New and Practical Workflow for Large Multipad SAGD Simulation—An Oil-Sands Case Study

2014· article· en· W2077368152 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStatoilImperial Oil Limited
KeywordsWorkflowReservoir simulationProcess (computing)Steam-assisted gravity drainageGridSimulation modelingComputer simulationComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringEngineeringOil sandsSimulationGeologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Every simulation engineer wishes to simulate large full-field models, but historically reservoir simulation of the steam-assisted-gravity- drainage (SAGD) process has been constrained to single-well models up to a single pad. Models of these sizes provide valuable information and have helped to assess the development potential of reservoirs. These models may be used for reservoir management and to support the decision-making process for the design of the initial completion, operating strategy, and multipad wind-down evaluations, and also qualitatively assess the uncertainty in the SAGD forecast under different geological settings. However, in many cases we are left with the question of how multiwell and multipad communications ultimately affect performance at the well-pair scale. Because of technological constraints with computer hardware and simulation technology, running extremely large multipad models has been until recently largely impractical, especially when trying to run multiple scenarios to better understand the impact of geological and operational uncertainty. In this paper, we present a new and practical workflow that makes running extremely large multipad, multimillion-grid-cell SAGD models a reality. The three major steps of the workflow are (1) generating simulation-friendly geomodels, (2) use of experimental design and 3D submodels on the basis of SAGD performance index (SPI) for numerical tuning, and (3) use of 2D cross sections and SPI to develop dynamic grid-refinement-parameter values for the full 3D model. All of these steps are intended to improve the numerical stability and run time of multipad SAGD simulation models. A 24-SAGD-well-pair model with 2.52 million gridblocks was simulated for 10 years of forecast. The reservoir is geologically complex and highly heterogeneous. We discuss some of the important aspects that need to be accounted for when simulating large-scale SAGD models. Using this new workflow, the simulation run time was reduced from 42 days to 7 days on eight central processing units (CPUs)—a six-time speedup. The resulting run time is short enough to facilitate multirealization simultaneous runs using eight CPUs, hence maximizing the throughput and minimizing the simulation cycle time. This new workflow can be easily replicated and, more importantly, automated to reduce engineering time requirements. While this paper focuses on the SAGD process, this methodology is completely generic in that it can be applied to any large data set for any process. Details will differ depending on the process, but the workflow will be the same.

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)0.001
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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