MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462540165 · doi:10.2118/0715-0081-jpt

Rapid Reservoir Modeling: Prototyping With an Intuitive, Sketch-Based Interface

2015· article· en· W2462540165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReservoir simulationDiagenesisGeologySketchComputer scienceInterface (matter)Petroleum engineeringMineralogyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Special Publications Editor Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 173237, “Rapid Reservoir Modeling: Prototyping of Reservoir Models, Well Trajectories, and Development Options With an Intuitive, Sketch-Based Interface,” by M.D. Jackson, SPE, G.J. Hampson, and D. Rood, Imperial College London; S. Geiger, SPE, and Z. Zhang, Heriot-Watt University; M.C. Sousa, SPE, R. Amorim, E. Vital Brazil, and F.F. Samavati, University of Calgary; and L.N. Guimaraes, SPE, University of Pernambuco, prepared for the 2015 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 23–25 February. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Constructing and refining complex reservoir models are challenging and time-consuming tasks that entail a high degree of uncertainty. Conventional modeling work flows have remained essentially unchanged for the past decade. Such work flows are poorly suited to rapid prototyping of a range of reservoirmodel concepts, well trajectories, and development options and to testing of how these might affect reservoir behavior. A new reservoir-modeling and -simulation approach, termed rapid reservoir modeling (RRM), allows such prototyping and complements existing work flows. Introduction Hydrocarbon reservoirs typically contain an array of complex geologic heterogeneities that are at or below the resolution of seismic data, so their geometry and spatial distribution are uncertain. These heterogeneities may be structural, stratigraphic, sedimentologic, or diagenetic in origin and often affect flow behavior and hydrocarbon recovery; hence, they must be captured in reservoir models. Reservoir-modeling work flows have remained essentially unchanged for the past decade, facilitated by commercially available software packages. These work flows begin with the construction of a geocellular reservoir model, in which a largely deterministic structural and stratigraphic framework is used to define the overall reservoir volume, and compartments and zones within the reservoir. A grid is then constructed within each zone, typically using pillars that are continuous from the top to the base of the modeled volume, and using layers that may vary in thickness or be truncated by reservoir-zone boundaries. Geostatistical methods are used to populate each grid cell with a geologic indicator (such as facies or rock type) and associated petrophysical properties. The resulting models typically contain several millions to tens of millions of cells and may be upscaled onto a coarser grid before flow simulation. Despite its wide use, there are a number of shortcomings with this work flow, including Conventional modeling workflows are slow, often requiring many months from the development of initial model concepts to flow simulation or other outputs. Conceptual geologic models become fixed early in the modeling process, with uncertainty explored using geostatistical methods within the framework of a single conceptual model, rather than across a range of possible geologic concepts. It is difficult or impossible to explore rapidly a range of conceptual models, well trajectories, and development options and test how these might affect reservoir behavior. The introduction of pillar grids early in the modeling workflow limits the spatial resolution of the model and the complexity of the geologic architectures that can be captured and focuses modeling efforts on population of gridblocks with rock properties by use of geostatistical modeling methods. Geostatistical methods are often nonintuitive and require inputs that are not closely linked to the underlying geologic concept, so it can be difficult for the geologist to create a digital version of the model concept. Integration across different disciplines is made more difficult by the use of different software tools and by different model grid types and resolutions. The aim of this work is to develop RRM software for prototyping of complex reservoir models, well trajectories, and development options by means of novel, sketch-based interaction and modeling coupled with exploratory visualization and close-to-real-time numerical analysis. The new approach does not replace existing work flows; rather, it supplements them by allowing rapid testing of geologic and development concepts and how these affect reservoir behavior.

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)0.001
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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207