MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896046149 · doi:10.2118/191359-pa

Integration of 4D Seismic in Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage Reservoir Characterization

2018· article· en· W2896046149 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Hadavand, Paul Carmichael, A Hosseinzadeh Dalir, Maximo Rodriguez, Diogo F. Silva, Clayton V. Deutsch

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteam-assisted gravity drainageGeologyPetroleum engineeringSteam injectionFluid dynamicsFlow (mathematics)Reservoir modelingSeismic to simulationSeismic inversionAsphaltOil sandsMechanicsAzimuth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 4D seismic is one of the main sources of dynamic data for heavy-oil-reservoir monitoring and management. 4D seismic is significant because seismic attributes such as velocity and impedance depend on variations in reservoir-fluid content, temperature, and pressure distribution as a result of hydrocarbon production. Thus, the large-scale nature of fluid flow within the reservoir can be evaluated through information provided by 4D-seismic data. Such information may be described as anomalies in fluid flow that can be inferred from the unusual patterns in variations of a seismic attribute. During steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), the steam-chamber propagation is fairly clear from 4D-seismic data mainly because of changes in reservoir conditions caused by steam injection and bitumen production. Anomalies in the propagation of the steam chamber reflect the quality of fluid flow within the reservoir. A practical methodology is implemented for integration of 4D seismic into SAGD reservoir characterization for the Surmont project.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Reservoir Evaluation & EngineeringSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207