Model-based decision analysis applied to petroleum field development and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work describes a new methodology for integrated decision analysis in the development and management of petroleum fields considering reservoir simulation, risk analysis, history matching, uncertainty reduction, representative models, and production strategy selection under uncertainty. Based on the concept of closed-loop reservoir management, we establish 12 steps to assist engineers in model updating and production optimization under uncertainty. The methodology is applied to UNISIM-I-D, a benchmark case based on the Namorado field in the Campos Basin, Brazil. The results show that the method is suitable for use in practical applications of complex reservoirs in different field stages (development and management). First, uncertainty is characterized in detail and then scenarios are generated using an efficient sampling technique, which reduces the number of evaluations and is suitable for use with numerical reservoir simulation. We then perform multi-objective history-matching procedures, integrating static data (geostatistical realizations generated using reservoir information) and dynamic data (well production and pressure) to reduce uncertainty and thus provide a set of matched models for production forecasts. We select a small set of Representative Models (RMs) for decision risk analysis, integrating reservoir, economic and other uncertainties to base decisions on risk-return techniques. We optimize the production strategies for (1) each individual RM to obtain different specialized solutions for field development and (2) all RMs simultaneously in a probabilistic procedure to obtain a robust strategy. While the second approach ensures the best performance under uncertainty, the first provides valuable insights for the expected value of information and flexibility analyses. Finally, we integrate reservoir and production systems to ensure realistic production forecasts. This methodology uses reservoir simulations, not proxy models, to reliably predict field performance. The proposed methodology is efficient, easy-to-use and compatible with real-time operations, even in complex cases where the computational time is restrictive.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".