MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552555223 · doi:10.2523/iptc-18907-ms

Comparison Study of Two Different Methods on the Localised Enkf on SAGD Processes

2016· article· en· W2552555223 on OpenAlex
Yingchao Huang, Xiang Zhou, Fanhua Zeng

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovarianceCovariance functionRange (aeronautics)Function (biology)Saturation (graph theory)MathematicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The localization on the automatic history matching of SAGD processes has not been studied. Also the distance-based localization is not applicable to SAGD processes. That is because in SAGD processes oil is produced mainly from the transition zone instead of regions centered producer. Distance cannot be used as the localization scale for SAGD processes. As the transition zone could be defined by temperature distribution, a new localization function with temperature as localization scale was developed. The temperature-based localization function was obtained through modifying distance-based localization function. The localization regions were determined through covariance analysis by using a large ensemble. Based on the covariance analysis, the temperature range of the transition zone is determined. The localization function is 1.0 for the regions within this temperature range. Beyond or below this range, the localization function reduces from 1.0 and at the critical or steam temperature the localization function reduces to zero. The localization is applied to covariance of data with permeability, saturation and temperature, as well as the covariance of data with data. The general localization function was developed by sensitivity analysis with synthetic cases. It could be applied to any SAGD cases with different steam temperatures and reservoir parameters. In the numerical simulation process, the history matching results showed that without localization, the variability in the ensemble collapsed very quickly and lost the ability to assimilate later data with a small ensemble (50 ensemble members) while the prediction was far from the reference with data mismatch remaining at a high level. The temperature-based localization is able to avoid the collapse of the ensemble variability with a smaller ensemble (10 ensemble members) which saves computation time and gives better history-match and prediction results. The computation time was analyzed in the work. With the temperature-based localization the computation time is greatly decreased by 75%. And another approach (localised EnKF with oil saturation) is also applied in this study to compare the calculation rate and accuracy. For this two methods, the localization regions should be the regions that have true correlations with production data. Dynamic data-temperature and oil saturation is used as localization scale in the localization function. And the temperature range and oil-saturation range is defined at which oil is flowing. And critical temperature is defined at which oil begins to get mobile. The localization function is 1 for regions in the temperature and oil saturation range, and decreases to 0 when the temperature reaches the steam temperature or critical temperature, or oil saturation reached initial oil saturation or residual oil saturation. To get the best history matching and prediction results, the localization function is applied to the Kalman gain and covariance matrices separately.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.321 · 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