MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521397395 · doi:10.2118/181144-ms

Design of Autonomous Inflow Control Device Completions in Heavy Oil for Complex Reservoir Structures

2016· article· en· W2521397395 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim Thornton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflowPetroleum engineeringWell controlCompletion (oil and gas wells)InjectorReservoir simulationOil productionProduction (economics)Oil fieldEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineeringDrilling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding reservoir structures is necessary when using autonomous inflow control devices (AICDs). Without a sound knowledge of nearby structures or manmade elements, such as injectors, production from heavy oil applications or any advanced completion may fall short of operator expectations. This paper provides several field examples to help illustrate the importance of understanding reservoir structures when using AICDs. The approach of this study is based on using a near wellbore (NWB) hydraulic simulator coupled with a reservoir simulator to capture holistically the completion/reservoir effects and interaction. With this approach, the production of unwanted fluids is delayed. When unwanted fluids do eventually break through, the AICD can greatly reduce the negative effects of the unwanted fluids on well production. Usually, the unwanted fluids are water and/or gas. Unwanted water is typically (but not limited to) coning or fingering from bottom or edge water drive or from nearby injectors. Gas is coned or fingered downward from the gas cap. Results show that, without understanding the structure and nearby anomalies of the reservoir, operators utilizing ICDs or AICDs can exacerbate the production of unwanted fluids. Field examples are derived primarily from heavy oil well completions designed for multiple operators in Columbia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Alaska, and Canada over the last eight year period. Typically, completion design must change as more information is gathered about the reservoir. Structural maps are often difficult to obtain, however importing the reservoir model into the design reservoir simulator model adds value. However, the field simulator grid blocks can be too large, creating a lack of definition along the horizontal well, and log data may not be included. This paper presents some simple methodologies in generating the most effective design possible from provided data. Establishing clear communication, gathering as much data as possible (including structural maps), and using proper models and simulators are key to optimizing advanced completion designs, particularly when utilizing AICDs in heavy oil.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207