MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090139481 · doi:10.2118/2009-099

Scaling A Water Coning Control Installation in Bottom Water Drive Reservoir by Inspectional Analysis

2009· article· en· W2090139481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lu Jin, Andrew K. Wojtanowicz, Gbolahan Afonja, W. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationLibrary scienceState (computer science)WorkflowHaystackEngineeringComputer scienceWorld Wide WebDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents an integrated workflow dedicated to the interpretation of 4D seismic data to monitor the steam chamber growth during the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage recovery process (SAGD). Superimposed to the reservoir heterogeneities of geological origin, many factors interact during thermal production of heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs, which complicates the interpretation of 4D seismic data: changes in oil viscosity, fluid saturations, pore pressure, etc. The workflow is based on the generation of a geological model inspired from a real field case of the McMurray Fm in the Athabasca region (Canada). The approach consists of three steps: 1/ the construction of an initial static model, 2/ the simulation of the thermal production of heavy oil with two coupled fluid-flow and geomechanical models, 3/ the production of synthetic seismic maps at different steps of steam injection. The distribution of geological facies is simulated on a very fine grid using a geostatistical approach which honours all available well data. The reservoir, geomechanical and elastic properties are characterized from logs and literature at an initial stage before the start of production. Production scenarios are run to obtain pore pressure, temperature, steam and oil saturations on a detailed reservoir grid around a well pair at several steps of production. Direct coupling with a geomechanical model leads to volumetric strain and mean effective stress maps as additional properties. These physical parameters are used to compute new seismic velocities and density for each step of production according to Hertz and Gassmann formulas. Reflectivity is then computed, and a new synthetic seismic image of the reservoir is generated for each step of production. The impacts of heterogeneities, production conditions and reservoir properties are evaluated for several simulation scenarios from the beginning of steam injection to three years of production. Results show that short-term seismic monitoring can help in anticipating early changes in steam injection strategy. In return, long-term periods allow monitoring the behaviour of the steam chamber laterally and in the upper part of the reservoir. This study demonstrates the added value of 4D seismic data in the context of steam-assisted heavy oil production. Introduction The performance of heavy-oil production by Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage process (SAGD) is affected by reservoir heterogeneities. However, as many factors interact during thermal production such as changes in oil viscosity, fluid saturations, pore pressure and stresses, the interpretation of 4D seismic data in terms of steam chamber geometry is not direct. Pressure and temperature variations during SAGD operations induce stress changes in the reservoir and in the surrounding media. These modifications of the stress state may imply deformations which can in turn have an impact on reservoir production. These changes also have an influence on the wave propagation into rocks and fluids and may consequently produce differences on seismic velocities and on the travel time. The objectives of this work are 1/ to evaluate the impact of reservoir heterogeneities on the steam chamber growth and 2/ to improve the interpretation of 4D seismic data in steam-assisted.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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