MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938510233 · doi:10.2118/195321-ms

Practical Automated Detection of Remaining Oil in Mature Fields Using Production and Geology Data

2019· article· en· W2938510233 on OpenAlexaff
Izzet Arslan, Farzaneh Rajabi, Fayadhoi Ibrahima

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Western Regional Meeting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowEnvironmental geologyGeobiologyRegional geologyComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringReservoir modelingOil fieldReservoir simulationField (mathematics)Engineering geologyAnalyticsReservoir engineeringEconomic geologyOil productionGeologyPetroleumData miningDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In all development phases of brownfields, identifying sweet spots and the potential remaining oil in place to be recovered is a cornerstone of reservoir management studies and field development operations. This becomes even more imperative for mature waterfloods, where the increasing water cut hinders the ongoing oil production. The current algorithms in waterflood network-based models are capable of building and matching a reservoir model by employing reduced physics data-driven approaches. These schemes estimate the saturation in the entire field; however, the next step in those approaches is adding a fully-integrated and closed loop automated workflow to model the remaining hydrocarbon volumes. The new data analytics approach presented is a systematic bottom-up approach in which the field data, including injection and production, well perforations, pressure history, geological and fluid properties and original oil in place, are integrated. The remaining hydrocarbon thickness and saturation calculated from this methodology are key to target future reactivation and recompletion candidates, therefore potentially reducing CAPEX and OPEX. This automated methodology is robust to handle not only the waterflood but all the development phases. Moreover, it is much faster than the ubiquitous history-matching processes, which require several months on average to be completed. To this end, we have validated the results by a blind test approach to increase the confidence in using the methodology. This proposed workflow greatly improves the assessment capabilities to locate the remaining hydrocarbon resources, and therefore is pragmatic for the prediction of the most prolific future production targets.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Western Regional MeetingSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207