MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108153918 · doi:10.2118/157360-pa

Prediction of Heavy-Oil Viscosities With a Simple Correlation Approach

2015· article· en· W2108153918 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Bahadori, Mahdi Mahmoudi, Alireza Nouri

Bibliographic record

VenueOil and Gas Facilities · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil viscosityViscosityPetroleum engineeringConsistency (knowledge bases)PetroleumOil productionSimple correlationEnvironmental scienceWork (physics)Process engineeringCorrelationComputer scienceGeologyThermodynamicsMathematicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy-oil development is becoming increasingly important because of the continuous decline in conventional-oil production. For heavy-oil reservoirs, the oil viscosity usually varies dramatically during production processes such as in thermal processes. When producing heavy oil, the high viscosity is a major impediment to recovery. Oil viscosity is often correlated directly to the reserves estimate in heavy-oil formations and can determine the success or failure of a given enhanced-oil-recovery scheme. As a result, viscosity is an important parameter for performing numerical simulation and determining the economics of a project. In this work, a simple-to-use correlation has been developed to correlate the viscosity of heavy oil to temperature and to a simple correlating parameter that can be used for heavy-oil characterization. The reported results are the product of the analysis of heavy-oil data collected from the open literature for various heavy-oil fields around the world. The tool developed in this study can be of immense practical value for petroleum engineers, providing a method for quick assessment of the viscosity of heavy oils. In particular, petroleum and production engineers would find the proposed correlation to be user-friendly, with transparent calculations involving no complex expressions. The new proposed correlation shows consistently accurate results. This consistency could not be matched by any of the widely accepted existing correlations within the investigated range. For all conditions, the new correlation provided better results than existing correlations in the literature.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOil and Gas FacilitiesSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207