MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904365926 · doi:10.2118/193769-ms

Optimization of Steam Injection for Heavy Oil Reservoirs Using Reinforcement Learning

2018· article· en· W2904365926 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceOptimal controlBellman equationProcess (computing)Mathematical optimizationAction (physics)Convergence (economics)Function (biology)Constant (computer programming)Dynamic programmingRate of convergenceControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsControl (management)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Steam injection rate through life cycle optimization (e.g., the constant rate for a long period of time) could lead to the sub-optimal performance of a thermal heavy oil recovery process. On the other hand, finding the optimal steam injection strategy (policy) represents a major challenge due to the complex dynamic of the physical phenomenon, i.e., nonlinear, slow, high order, time-varying, and potentially highly heterogeneous reservoirs. To address this challenge, the problem can be formulated as an optimal control problem that has typically been solved using adjoint state optimization and a model-predictive control (MPC) strategy. In contrast, this work presents a reinforcement learning (RL) approach in which the mathematical model of the dynamic process (SAGD) is assumed unknown. An agent is trained to find the optimal policy only through continuous interactions with the environment (e.g., numerical reservoir simulation model). At each time step, the agent executes an action (e.g., increase steam injection rate), receives a reward (e.g., net present value) and observes the new state (e.g., pressure distribution) of the environment. During this interaction, an action-value function is approximated; this function will offer for a given state of the environment the action that will maximize total future reward. This process continues for multiple simulations (episodes) of the dynamic process until convergence is achieved. In this implementation, the state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) online policy learning algorithm is employed in which the action-value function is continually estimated after every time step and further used to choose the optimal action. The environment consists of a reservoir simulation model built using data from a reservoir located in northern Alberta. The model consists of one well pair (one injector and one producer) and production horizon of 250 days (one episode) is considered. The state of the environment is defined as cumulative, oil and water production, and water injection and for each time step; three possible actions are considered, i.e., increase, decrease or no change of current steam injection rate; and the reward represents the net present value (NPV). Additionally, stochastic gradient descent is used to approximate the action-value function. Results show that the optimal steam injection policy obtained using RL implementation improves NPV by at least 30% with more than 60% lower computation cost.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.265 · 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