MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521410283 · doi:10.2118/0915-0110-jpt

Technology Focus: Reservoir Performance and Monitoring (September 2015)

2015· article· en· W2521410283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silviu Livescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Petroleum industryEnhanced oil recoveryDrillingBusinessOperations managementEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsEngineeringEconomicsPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Focus Recent months have been very challenging for the oil and gas industry. When the previous Reservoir Performance and Monitoring feature appeared in JPT in September 2014, Brent was trading at approximately USD 105/bbl. At the end of June 2015, when this statement was written, its price was 41% lower, at just above USD 62/bbl. In addition, the world rig counts reported by Baker Hughes in September 2014 and June 2015 were 3,659 and 2,152, respectively, a decrease of approximately 41% (rig count is a trailing indicator of oil price). The international and North America rigcount decreases between September 2014 and June 2015 were approximately 12 and 57%, respectively. These steep decreases, mostly the direct consequence of a global imbalance between demand and supply, are warnings that our conventional innovation schemes need to be recalibrated. Even if the rig count has been dropping, the rig efficiency continues to improve. From multiwell pads to advanced drilling technologies, innovation is helping keep current production high. If current low prices persist, further innovation may improve the alignment between short-term production and long-term recovery, while lowering overall production costs. Maximizing short-term production and optimizing longterm recovery may provide key opportunities for cost savings during the next downturn of major proportions. This could be achieved through the industry’s ability to innovatively acquire and interpret data for optimizing the reservoir performance. The industry is continuously looking at new monitoring devices and techniques, and there are huge opportunities for monitoring fieldwide data with the ultimate goal of understanding the reservoir better and predicting its short- and long-term production more accurately. The current downturn may be a great opportunity for the big-data revolution from other industries to be extended to the oil and gas industry in general and to reservoir performance in particular. As a result of the industry’s current efforts to improve reservoir performance and reduce production costs, many great papers have been presented at recent SPE conferences and meetings. From the more than 100 papers reviewed for this feature, approximately half of them present case histories, field-data interpretation, and work flows, and the other half present theoretical and laboratory results. The papers summarized in this feature and recommended as additional reading are excellent samples of this distribution. JPT Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org. SPE 170619 Wireless Inflow Monitoring in a Subsea Field Development: A Case Study From the Hyme Field, Offshore Mid-Norway by Svein Mjaaland, Statoil, et al. IPTC 18115 Three-Dimensional Visualization of Solvent Chamber Growth in Solvent-Injection Processes: An Experimental Approach by F. Fang, University of Alberta, et al. SPE 171932 Linking Diagenesis, NMR, and Dynamic Data for Accurate Flow Characterization of Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir by Umer Farooq, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations, et al. SPE 172929 Production Forecast, Analysis, and Simulation of Eagle Ford Shale Oil Wells by Basel Alotaibi, Texas A&M University, et al.

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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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