MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321660999 · doi:10.2118/175981-ms

Developing The Business Case For Water Management Planning Integration

2015· article· en· W2321660999 on OpenAlexaff
Alyssa M. Neir, Tekla Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationReuseContext (archaeology)Computer scienceProduction planningScheduleProcess (computing)Project managementProduction (economics)Systems engineeringProcess managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well documented that the cost of managing produced water amounts to a significant portion of the operating cost of an unconventional well over its lifetime. The greatest factor attributing to this cost is transportation, which can be addressed through logistical planning. However, effective logistical planning begins at the early phases of a project during reservoir engineering and drilling and production scheduling. But making the case for early phase water management planning can be challenging when there is limited field data and engineering priorities have not yet been established. This paper will look at how dynamic simulation modeling can be used to cost effectively optimize facility engineering while taking into consideration water management planning objectives. Water management and facilities planning is an iterative process that is affected by many different inputs, ranging from environmental constraints to oil and gas production targets to power and energy demands. Putting these into a dynamic context that supports early phase scenario planning allows diverse members of the development team (reservoir, completions, facilities, water and environmental engineers) to understand the impacts of various constraints on the development schedule, well production, and capital and operating costs. Having this information in hand early in the project also allows the team to work together to quantify the impacts of various water management scenarios on exploration and production and conversely, the impact of the exploration and production decisions on future water sourcing and reuse opportunities. Using a dynamic simulation modeling process to evaluate these scenarios and provide meaningful output and documentation can help management to prioritize their cost savings goals, balance trade-offs between water management and facility engineering objectives and communicate their business decisions to the necessary stakeholders. In addition to evaluating the engineering viability and economic impacts, a dynamic simulation model can also take into consideration the area-wide impacts to water, air and the ecosystem under various planning scenarios, and can be used to support play-based water management planning and permitting and industry collaboration.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207