MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997260103 · doi:10.2118/0120-0059-jpt

Data-Acquisition Optimization Maximizes Value of Mature Oil-Rim Reservoirs

2019· article· en· W2997260103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judy Feder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfillPetroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)GeologyAnticlineSubmarine pipelineOil fieldRedevelopmentEngineeringCivil engineeringStructural basinPaleontologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Judy Feder, contains highlights of paper SPE 196208, “Value Creation From the Reservoir, Well, and Facilities Management (RWFM) Planning in Multistacked Mature Oil-Rim Reservoir, Offshore Sarawak, Malaysia,” by Yeek Huey Ho, SPE, Nor Baizurah Ahmad Tajuddin, SPE, Muhammed Mansor Elharith, SPE, Hui Xuan Dan, Kwang Chian Chiew, Kok Liang Tan, SPE, Raj Deo Tewari, SPE, and Rahim Masoudi, SPE, Petronas, prepared for the 2019 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Calgary, 29 September–2 October. The paper has not been peer previewed. The XamXung field offshore Sarawak, Malaysia, is a 47-year brownfield with thin remaining oil rims that have made field management challenging. The dynamic oil-rim movement has been a key subsurface uncertainty, particularly with the commencing of a redevelopment project. A reservoir, well, and facilities-management (RWFM) plan was implemented to optimize development decisions. This paper is a continuation of paper SPE 174638 and outlines the outcome of the RWFM plan and the results’ effect on development decisions such as infill well placement and gas/water injection-scheme optimization (Fig. 1). Key decisions affected by the RWFM findings are highlighted in the complete paper. Introduction The XamXung field was discovered in 1967, with commercial production established in 1972. The field is a simple faulted anticline bounded by two major faults in the north and south. The field consists primarily of clastic deposits characterized by thick sands interbedded with thin shale layers of late Miocene to Pliocene age. The field consists of multiple stacked gas and oil reservoirs, with key producing intervals being the oil-rim reservoirs XE/XF and XH/XI, and the deeper oil reservoir XL, as well as major nonassociated gas reservoirs XA, XC, XD, XM, and XN. The main discussion of the complete paper focuses on XE/XF and XH/XI reservoir redevelopment. XE/XF is a saturated oil-rim reservoir with initial oil-rim thicknesses of 95 and 85 ft, respectively. The XE/XF oil rim is overlain by a gas cap with m size (ratio of initial free-gas reservoir volume to initial reservoir oil volume) of 1.1 and 0.4, respectively. XE and XF reservoirs are separated by a fieldwide sealed shale layer of 10–20-ft thickness. Initial reservoir pressure and well log data acquired during the early production his-tory suggested that XE/XF reservoirs originally shared a common gas/oil con-tact (GOC) but different free-water levels. XE/XF reservoirs have an average porosity of 27–32% and average permeability of 500–1500 md. They started production in 1974 and reached peak production in 1977. The reservoir pressure has declined by only 200 psi after 45 years of production, indicating that the reservoir is under a strong aquifer drive. Gas injection into XE reservoir commenced in 1995 following an increasing water-cut trend in most of the producers, with the objective to counteract the aquifer influx and to allow uniform gas-cap gas expansion throughout the reservoir. However, the reservoir historically has produced more free gas compared with the amount of gas reinjected, resulting in the reservoir gas-cap shrinkage.

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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207